To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Annual statistical report : summary statistics for the Division of Prisons & the Division of Adult Probation and Parole

Annual statistical report : summary statistics for the Division of Prisons & the Division of Adult Probation and Parole

2005- 2006
Annual Statistical Report
North Carolina
Department of Correction
Mike Easley
Theodis Beck
Governor
Secretary of Correction
Table of Contents
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction……………… 5
Office of Research and Planning............................................................................ 6
I. Division of Prisons............................................................................................. 7
Costs of Incarceration for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................ 7
I. A. Prison Admissions........................................................................................................... 9
Prison Admission Trend..................................................................................................... 9
Type of Admissions............................................................................................................ 9
Admissions by Sentencing Grids...................................................................................... 10
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions.................................................................. 11
I. B. Prison Population.......................................................................................................... 14
Prison Population Trend................................................................................................... 14
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids............................................................................ 14
Inmate Activities............................................................................................................... 17
Programs....................................................................................................................... ... 18
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions........................................................................................ 19
Escapes and Captures........................................................................................................ 20
I. C. Prison Releases............................................................................................................. 23
Prison Release Trend........................................................................................................ 23
Type of Release................................................................................................................. 23
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year.................................... 24
I. D. Prison Population Projections....................................................................................... 26
II. Division of Community Corrections............................................................... 27
Cost of Sanctions.............................................................................................................. 28
II. A. Probation...................................................................................................................... 29
Probation Entry Trend....................................................................................................... 29
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Probation Entries.................................................................... 29
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids....................................................................... 30
Type of Probation Exits.................................................................................................... 31
II. B. Post- Release Supervision............................................................................................. 33
Post- Release Entry Trend................................................................................................. 33
Post- Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids................................................ 33
Type of Post- Release Exits............................................................................................... 34
II. C. Parole......................................................................................................................... .. 35
Parole Entry Trend............................................................................................................ 35
Crime Type of Parole Population..................................................................................... 35
Type of Parole Exits.......................................................................................................... 36
II. D. Community Corrections Demographics....................................................................... 37
II. E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders........................................................ 38
II. G. Supervised Population Projections............................................................................... 43
i
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program............................................................ 45
III. A Day Reporting Centers................................................................................................. 46
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 46
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 46
DRC Program Utilization................................................................................................. 47
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 48
III. B Satellite Substance Abuse Programs............................................................................ 50
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 50
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 51
SSA Program Utilization.................................................................................................. 52
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 53
III. C Resource Centers.......................................................................................................... 55
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 55
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 55
RC Program Utilization.................................................................................................... 56
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 57
IV. Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs..................... 60
IV. A. Community- Based Substance Abuse Treatment: DART Cherry.............................. 62
Enrollment in DART- Cherry............................................................................................ 62
Exits from DART- Cherry................................................................................................. 63
IV. B. Prison- Based DART................................................................................................... 65
IV. C. DART- 24 Education.................................................................................................. 66
IV. D. Intermediate DART Programs.................................................................................... 68
IV. E. Long- Term Residential Substance Abuse Treatment.................................................. 71
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs.......................................................... 71
Private Treatment Centers................................................................................................. 72
IV. F. DART Aftercare.......................................................................................................... 75
V. Appendices..................................................................................................... 76
Appendix A. Department of Correction Populations by County of Conviction.................. 76
Appendix B. Listing of Division of Prisons Facilities......................................................... 83
Appendix C. Listing of the Division of Community Corrections Regional Offices............ 87
ii
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Authorized budget and actual expenditures..................................................................... 5
Table I. 1: Daily cost per inmate for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006: state prisons.................................. 7
Table I. 2: Daily cost per inmate: private prisons.......................................................................... 8
Figure I. A. 1: Total admissions by crime class............................................................................... 9
Figure I. A. 2: Prison Admissions.................................................................................................... 9
Table I. A. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanor Prison Admissions..................................................................................................................... .............. 10
Table I. A. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Admissions11
Figure I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions........................................................ 12
Table I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions by Felon/ Misdemeanant Status...... 12
Table I. A. 4: Demographics of Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006............................... 13
Figure I. B. 1: Prison population by crime class............................................................................ 14
Table I. B. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanant Prison Population..................................................................................................................... ............... 15
Table I. B. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Population. 15
Figure I. B. 2: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year................................ 16
Table I. B. 3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2006................................................ 17
Table I. B. 4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category......................................................... 17
Table I. B. 5: Inmate Program Assignments.................................................................................. 19
Table I. B. 6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2005- 2006....................................................... 21
Table I. B. 7: Demographics of Prison Population on June 30, 2006............................................ 22
Figure I. C. 1: Prison Releases....................................................................................................... 23
Figure I. C. 2: Type of Releases.................................................................................................... 23
Table I. D. 1: Prison Population Projections.................................................................................. 26
Table II. 1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006............................................................ 28
Figure II. A. 1: Probation entries by crime class........................................................................... 29
Figure II. A. 2: Probation entries by crime type............................................................................ 30
Table II. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2006........ 30
Table II. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2006............. 31
Figure II. A. 3: Probation Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year...................................................... 32
Figure II. B. 1: Post- release entries by fiscal year......................................................................... 33
Table II. B. 1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post- Release Population on June 30, 2006........ 34
Figure II. B. 2: Post- Release Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year................................................. 34
Figure II. C. 1: Parole entries FY 1995- 1996 through 2005- 2006................................................. 35
Figure II. C. 2: Crime types of parole population on June 30, 2006............................................. 36
Figure II. C. 3: Parole Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year............................................................ 36
Table II. D. 1: Demographics of Community Corrections Supervision Admissions.................... 37
Table II. D. 2: Demographics of Community Corrections Supervision Population...................... 37
Table II. E. 1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................... 38
Table II. G. 1: Total Supervision Projections ( Absconders Excluded) for June 30th of Each Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ................... 43
Figure III. A. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 46
Table III. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 47
iii
Table III. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 47
Table III. A. 3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006.................................................... 48
Figure III. A. 2: DRC Type of Exits.............................................................................................. 49
Table III. A. 4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............ 49
Figure III. B. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 50
Table III. B. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 51
Table III. B. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 51
Table III. B. 3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006..................................................... 52
Figure III. B2: SSA Program Type of Exits................................................................................. 53
Table III. B. 4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............. 54
Figure III. C. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 55
Table III. C. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to RC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 56
Table III. C. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to RC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 56
Table III. C. 3: RC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006....................................................... 57
Figure III. C2: RC Program Type of Exits................................................................................... 58
Table III. C. 4: Demographics of RC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............... 59
Table IV. A. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment for DART Cherry............................................................ 62
Figure IV. A. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from the 28- Day DART Cherry Program................................ 63
Figure IV. A. 2: 2005- 2006 Exits from the 90- Day DART Cherry Program................................ 63
Table IV. A. 2: Demographics of DART Cherry Entries.............................................................. 64
Table IV. B. 1: 2005- 2006 Referrals to DACDP Programs by Prison Diagnostic Center............ 65
Table IV. C. 1: 2005- 2006 Annual Enrollments in DART- 24...................................................... 66
Figure IV. C. 1: 2005- 2006 DART- 24 Exits................................................................................. 67
Table IV. C. 2: Demographics of DART 24 Enrollments............................................................. 67
Table IV. D. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Intermediate DART Programs.................................... 68
Figure IV. D. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from Intermediate DART Programs........................................ 69
Table IV. D. 2: Demographics of DART Intensive Residential Treatment Entries...................... 70
Table IV. E. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in RSAT- Based Long- Term Treatment Programs........... 71
Figure IV. E. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from RSAT- based Long- Term Treatment Programs............... 72
Table IV. E. 2: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Private Treatment Facilities......................................... 73
Figure IV. E. 2: 2005- 2006 Exits from Private Treatment............................................................ 73
Table IV. E. 3: Demographics of RSAT Entries........................................................................... 74
Table IV. E. 4: Private Alcohol/ Drug Treatment Centers Entries................................................. 74
Table IV. F. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Continuing Care........................................................... 75
Figure V. A. 1: Prison Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006....................... 76
Figure V. A. 2: Community Corrections Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006........................................................................................................................... ................... 77
Figure V. A. 3: Prison Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2006............................. 78
Figure V. A. 4: Community Corrections Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2006.79
Table V. A. 1: Populations by County of Conviction.................................................................... 80
iv
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction
The North Carolina Department of Correction, one of the largest agencies in State government, is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult offenders sentenced to community/ intermediate punishments or prison. The Department is comprised of three operational divisions that manage offenders directly, as well as numerous administrative support sections. The major Divisions include the Division of Prisons, the Division of Community Corrections, and the Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs.
In 1998, the Department developed a long- range strategic plan, which is based on the following vision statement and strategic issues:
Vision Statement
We, the employees of the Department of Correction, envision an organization respected by the citizens of North Carolina for its effectiveness in responding to the problem of crime in our society and working collaboratively with others to prevent crime through community involvement. We see an organization providing public safety, opportunities for offenders to become productive citizens, and growth and development for employees. We see ourselves contributing to the creation of a society of law- abiding, responsible citizens.
Strategic Issues
• Lead proactively regarding corrections issues.
• Develop and train employees for personal and professional growth.
• Deliver effective services and programs using research and advanced technology.
• Emphasize cost efficient management of resources and accountability for high quality results.
There are over 19,300 employees in the Department of Correction, primarily working directly with offenders in the community or in prisons. The Department is funded through legislative appropriations and receipts ( e. g., Corrections Enterprises). The total authorized budget and actual expenditures for the Department of Correction over the past five fiscal years are shown in the table below.
Table 1: Authorized budget and actual expenditures
Fiscal Year
North Carolina Department of Correction Authorized Budget
Actual Expenditures
Percent Change in Authorized Budget over Previous Year
2005- 2006
$ 1,121,569,235
$ 1,119,765,756
7.90%
2004- 2005
$ 1,039,461,373
$ 1,038,323,440
4.70%
2003- 2004
$ 992,786,962
$ 978,694,164
9.56%
2002- 2003
$ 906,148,525
$ 885,875,791
- 5.62%
2001- 2002
$ 960,071,979
$ 914,843,399
- 0.08%
5
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Office of Research and Planning
Supporting Successful Decisions
The Office of Research and Planning is part of the Secretary’s Office and provides support services within the Department of Correction. The mission of the Office of Research and Planning is to assist the department and staff to make informed decisions that will result in successful outcomes. Staff includes research and evaluation analysts, applications programmers, correctional planners, and statisticians.
The Research section of the Office coordinates a variety of internal and external evaluation projects. Research assists staff to evaluate effectiveness, modify policies and programs, and report outcomes to policy makers. Research activities include the following:
• Obtain and organize topical information on research topics.
• Prepare statistical and topical reports.
• Conduct evaluations.
• Provide data and methodology review for evaluations.
• Approve human subject research involving staff and offenders under the supervision of the Department of Correction.
• Provide technical assistance on conducting evaluations.
The Planning/ Policy Analysis section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance in strategic planning and policy analysis to the sections and divisions in the Department. Planning and policy analysis activities include the following:
• Develop a structure and process for planning.
• Conduct trend analyses and organizational assessments.
• Organize and facilitate meetings of work groups engaged in planning and policy analysis.
• Research, gather and organize information for policy and programming decisions.
• Consult on methods to implement and monitor plans and policies.
• Analyze information on science- based program interventions and best practices.
The Decision Support section of the Office provides aggregate statistical information and software applications to assist Department managers and staff to make decisions. Decision Support activities include the following:
• Provide answers to statistical questions about offenders.
• Develop computer programs to extract aggregate offender data.
• Analyze and interpret statistical information.
• Develop software applications to provide information about offenders.
• Provide internet- based decision support training.
• Prepare population forecasts and utilize simulation models.
The Program Development section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance to departmental managers and staff to implement new, effective programs that cross division lines. Program development activities include the following:
• Identify sources of information and contacts on effective prison, probation and substance abuse programs.
• Coordinate and facilitate work groups to develop program proposals.
• Assimilate materials to market new program concepts with internal and external groups.
• Prepare implementation plans for new probation, prison and/ or substance abuse programs.
• Develop methods for assessing the effectiveness of new programs. 6
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. Division of Prisons
The Division of Prisons is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of over 37,000 inmates. As of June 30, 2006, there were 78 state prisons in North Carolina and three private non- profit contracted facilities. In order to protect the community, staff, and inmates, the Division of Prisons classifies prisons, inmates, and prison beds according to prison security designation, inmate custody classification, and bed security levels, respectively.
The Secretary of the Department of Correction assigns the security designation of the prison based on the physical design and structure of the prison, the type of cells in the prison ( e. g. single cells, dormitories), and the intensity and type of staff supervision ( e. g. armed, unarmed). Currently, there are 13 close, 26 medium, and 39 minimum security state prisons, and the minimum security prisons are contracted facilities.
The Division receives felons and misdemeanants with prison sentences ranging from a minimum of 90 days for certain misdemeanors to life imprisonment or death for crimes such as rape or murder. Prison staff classify the individual inmate’s custody by analyzing factors such as current crime, length of sentence, past criminal history, and past prison behavior record. At the end of the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, 47 percent of inmates in the prison population were assigned to medium custody, 35 percent to minimum and 18 percent to close custody.
The Division provides rehabilitative activities for inmates. These activities include jobs, educational programs, vocational programs, cognitive behavioral interventions, substance abuse interventions, mental health interventions, and religious services.
Costs of Incarceration for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
The Department calculates an average cost of incarcerating minimum, medium, and close custody inmates annually. The figures include the direct costs of inmate supervision/ custody and programs/ activities, and indirect administrative costs for Department support of prisons. The daily cost of incarcerating one inmate ranged from $ 54.81 in minimum custody to $ 79.72 in close custody, with an average of $ 66.87 in 2005- 2006 compared to an average of $ 63.58 in the 2004- 2005 fiscal year.
Table I. 1: Daily cost per inmate for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006: state prisons
Inmate Custody Level
Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Minimum
12,754
$ 54.81
Medium
17,825
$ 70.83
Close
6,544
$ 79.72
Average
37,131
$ 66.87
The Department had contracts with two private non- profit minimum security substance abuse treatment prisons and one private non- profit minimum security community re- entry prison during the year. Table I. 2 indicates the contracted operating cost per day per inmate for each of these facilities for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year.
7
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. 2: Daily cost per inmate: private prisons
Private Facility
2005- 2006 Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Mary Frances Center
97
$ 84.57
Evergreen Rehab Center
90
$ 66.80
ECO Halfway House
20
$ 46.23 8
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. A. Prison Admissions
Prison Admission Trend
During fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 27,257 admissions to North Carolina prisons. Figure I. A. 1 shows the total number of admissions beginning in fiscal year 1995- 1996, by felon or misdemeanant status.
Figure I. A. 1: Total admissions by crime class.
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 200627,2572004- 200526,0702003- 200425,3262002- 200323,5932001- 200223,7602000- 200123,2991999- 200025,2731998- 199925,1561997- 199825,4081996- 199724,4491995- 199623,18105,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal YearEntriesTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Although admissions decreased in the early part of the decade, there has been a return to the 1999- 2000 admissions level in recent years. Part of the initial increase and then decrease is due to a reorganization of programs within the Department of Correction. For several years, the IMPACT boot camp program was part of the Division of Prisons, but it was administratively transferred in 1999 when the statute was rewritten to define it as an Intermediate Punishment, and entries no longer counted as a prison admission. A 5% increase in admissions occurred between fiscal years 2004- 2005 and 2005- 2006.
Type of Admissions
There are four types of admissions to prison: new admissions, probation revocations, parole/ post- release supervision revocations, and safekeepers/ pre- sentence diagnostic inmates. Revocations are violations of the conditions of probation, parole, or post- release supervision, including committing new crimes. New admissions result from a court- imposed active sentence to prison. Safekeepers are un- sentenced defendants admitted to prison when detention in the local jail poses a danger to the inmate or when medical care is needed. Pre- sentence diagnostic admissions ( PSD) are inmates who have been convicted, but the judge requests an assessment before sentencing.
More than half ( 53%) the prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were probation revocations1 and 42% were from new admissions. Safekeepers and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions accounted for 5% of admissions. Figure I. A. 2 shows prison admissions by type.
1 Fifty- three percent of prison admissions due to revocation is not the same as the probation revocation rate. These prison admissions comprise a subset of offenders who had a probation revocation for technical violations or new crimes. It is computed as a percentage of offenders entering prison, whereas the probation revocation rate is the percentage of offenders who exited community supervision.
9
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure I. A. 2: Prison Admissions 14,37125211,4691,16502,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000New AdmissionsProbation RevocationParole/ Post- ReleaseRevocationSafekeep/ PSDAdmission TypeEntries
Admissions by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act became effective in 1994. This sentencing policy prescribes sentencing options for judges based on the severity of the crime and the prior record of the offender. Judges are provided with specific sentencing options for the type and length of sentence that may be imposed. DWI admissions and pre- structured sentencing inmates are sentenced under different laws. Tables I. A. 1 and I. A. 2 illustrate the distribution of fiscal year 2005- 2006 prison admissions for misdemeanants and felons.
Table I. A. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanor Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
103
397
1,340
0
1,840
( 21%)
1
372
657
3,127
0
4,156
( 48%)
2
20
103
125
0
248
( 3%)
3
2
1
8
0
11
(< 1%)
DWI
1
1
0
2,439
2,441
( 28%)
Total
498
1,159
4,600
2,439
8,696
(%)
( 6%)
( 13%)
( 53%)
( 28%)
Convictions for Class 1 misdemeanors represent the largest group of misdemeanor prison admissions. Offenses in Class 1 included traffic violations ( 28%), larceny ( 28%), and non- trafficking drug offenses ( 19%). Convictions for Driving While Impaired ( DWI) were the next largest contributors to misdemeanor admissions. These convictions were not part of Structured Sentencing but rather the Safe Roads Act of 1983. The third most numerous crime class for misdemeanor admissions to prison were Class A1. Almost all of the Class A1 offenses were assaults ( 90%). The remainder of the misdemeanor offenses resulting in an admission to prison included worthless checks, assaults, property and public order offenses.
10
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Eighty- one percent of all felony prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were for Class F through Class I offenses. Class H offenses represented the largest group of felons admitted to prison with 6,634 or 38% of all admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006. The majority of Class H admissions were for breaking and entering ( 28%), followed by larceny ( 22%), and drug crimes ( non- trafficking) ( 20%). Class I offenses made up the next largest group, sixty- eight percent of which were for non- trafficking drug offenses but also included forgery ( 13%) and breaking and entering ( 11%). Class G offenses included drug ( non- trafficking) offenses ( 36%), as well as robbery ( 20%), public order crimes ( 16%) and drugs trafficking ( 16%). Sexual offenses ( 31%), assaults ( 17%) public order ( 17%), and drugs trafficking crimes ( 13%) were the most frequent Class F offenses.
Table I. A. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
ndefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
on- tructured
Total
(%)
A
62
8
7
5
0
2
5
< 1%)
B1
70
30
14
14
5
2
35
< 1%)
B2
113
76
49
31
4
2
76
2%)
C
149
185
194
254
89
72
57
6%)
D
271
275
120
84
24
11
05
5%)
E
313
370
156
96
25
19
79
6%)
F
448
448
322
175
43
49
,494
9%)
G
587
781
630
464
114
63
,640
15%)
H
1,020
2,122
1,569
1,225
381
,634
38%)
I
518
1,173
719
595
166
,353
19%)
Other
1
0
0
0
0
0
< 1%)
3,552
5,468
3,780
2,943
851
Total (%)
( 20%)
( 31%)
( 22%)
( 17%)
( 5%)
4%)
1%)
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
The remaining felony classes contain the most serious offenses. Almost all Class A offenses were first degree murder and carry a punishment of death or life without parole ( 96%). All Class B1 offenses were sexual assaults. Most B2 admissions were for second degree murder ( 75%) but there were some sexual assaults ( 16%) and first degree murders ( 9%) in this class. In Class C, 66% of admissions were habitual felons, 14% of admissions were for sexual assault, and 10% of admissions were for assault. Sixty- three percent of Class D admissions were for robbery. Finally, Class E admissions were mostly for crimes against a person including assaults ( 57%), kidnapping and abduction ( 15%), and robbery ( 15%).
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions
Overall, 67% of the 2005- 2006 prison admissions were for felony crime convictions. Crimes resulting in a prison sentence are grouped in one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person.
11
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The most frequent crime type for prison admissions was public order. This crime type accounted for 47% of all admissions during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. This crime type included drugs offenses – trafficking and non- trafficking ( 6,231), Driving While Impaired ( 2,583), traffic violations ( 1,732), and habitual felons ( 628). Among public order crime admissions, 62% were felons.
Property crimes accounted for 30% of all prison admissions. The most frequent offenses in this category were larceny ( 2,686) and breaking/ entering ( 2,482). Other offenses included fraud ( 1,128), forgery ( 539) and burglary ( 242). The majority of admissions ( 75%) for property crimes were felons. Figure I. A. 3 shows the number of admissions by crime type for fiscal year 2005- 2006 prison admissions.
Figure I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions 7,693 ( 30%) 12,182 ( 47%) 6,176 ( 24%) 27 (< 1%) 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesNot ReportedCrime TypeEntries
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
There were 6,176 admissions for crimes against a person, which accounted for 24% of all prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006. Forty- eight percent of these crimes were assaults ( 2,994). This category also included robberies ( 1,307), sexual offenses ( 962) and homicides ( 491). As with property and public order crimes, the majority ( 66%) of crimes against a person were felon admissions. Table I. A. 3 shows 2005- 2006 admissions by crime type and felon or misdemeanant status.
Table I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions by Felon/ Misdemeanant Status
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
Total
(%)
Crimes Against a Person
4,091
2,085
0
6,176
( 24%)
Property Crimes
5,737
1,956
0
7,693
( 29%)
Public Order Crimes
7,527
4,655
0
12,182
( 47%)
Not Reported
0
0
39
39
(< 1%)
Total (%)
17,355
( 67%)
8,696
( 33%)
39
(< 1%)
26,090
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions. 12
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. A. 4: Demographics of Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
264
601
47
27
40
4
983
( 4%)
19- 21
918
1,495
136
129
97
10
2,785
( 10%)
22- 25
1,402
2,108
309
247
191
15
4,272
( 16%)
26- 30
1,473
2,262
320
348
244
25
4,672
( 17%)
31- 35
1,438
1,801
237
362
235
27
4,100
( 15%)
36- 40
1,243
1,660
154
350
247
23
3,677
( 13%)
41- 45
1,134
1,567
91
279
235
16
3,322
( 12%)
46- 50
745
1,006
49
140
108
4
2,052
( 8%)
51- 55
307
466
30
41
52
0
896
( 3%)
56- 60
127
153
7
11
16
0
314
( 1%)
61- 65
56
42
2
5
2
0
107
(< 1%)
66- 70
25
22
1
5
0
0
53
(< 1%)
71+
13
10
1
0
0
0
24
(< 1%)
Total
9,145
13,193
1,384
1,944
1,467
124
27,257
(%)
( 34%)
( 48%)
( 5%)
( 7%)
( 5%)
( 0%)
Note: This total includes 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
13
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. B. Prison Population
Prison Population Trend
On June 30, 2006, there were 37,467 offenders in the prison system, representing approximately a 2% increase from the previous fiscal year. Figure I. B. 1 shows the prison year end population from fiscal year 1995- 1996 by felon- misdemeanant status. The prison population has continued to grow over the past few years after a slight decrease from 1998 through 2000. There were 218 safekeepers in the prison population on June 30, 2006.
Figure I. B. 1: Prison population by crime class.
DatePopulation06/ 30/ 200637,46706/ 30/ 200536,66306/ 30/ 200435,20506/ 30/ 200333,58306/ 30/ 200233,02106/ 30/ 200131,89906/ 30/ 200031,58106/ 30/ 199931,91406/ 30/ 199832,61206/ 30/ 199732,52906/ 30/ 199630,87605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndingPopulationTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids
Although 33% of prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were misdemeanants, this group comprised only 6% of the population on June 30, 2006. This is largely due to shorter sentence lengths for misdemeanor offenses. Forty- four percent of misdemeanant inmates in the prison population at the end of the fiscal year were incarcerated for Class 1 offenses. Three- quarters of these convictions were for traffic violations ( 31%), larceny ( 27%) or drugs ( non- trafficking) charges ( 17%). Most had a Prior Record Level of II or III. Thirty percent of misdemeanants in the population were convicted for DWI and another 24% were incarcerated for a Class A1 offense. The majority of these convictions were for assaults ( 91%). Table I. B. 1 shows the crime class and prior record level for misdemeanants in prison at the end of Fiscal Year 2005- 2006.
14
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanant Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total (%)
A1
20
68
450
0
538
( 24%)
1
44
95
826
0
965
( 44%)
2
4
10
16
0
30
( 1%)
3
0
0
4
0
4
(< 1%)
DWI
1
1
0
663
665
( 30%)
Other/ Undefined
0
0
0
8
8
(< 1%)
Total
69
174
1,296
671
2,210
(%)
( 3%)
( 8%)
( 59%)
( 30%)
Note: This total does not include the 17 offenders committed as safekeepers.
The profile of the felon inmate population was very different from the profile of felon admissions to prison. Class A- E offenses represented 19% of prison admissions during 2005- 2006 but accounted for 57% of the prison population on June 30, 2006. Felons have long sentences, so they remain in the population over an extended period of time and account for the projected growth in the prison population in the next few years ( Page 25 has information on prison projections). For example, consider the difference in the admissions for Class A offenders and the number in the population. There were 85 Class A admissions last fiscal year and on June 30, 2006 there were 1,458 in the population. The sentence for these offenders is either life in prison or death. Table I. B. 2 shows crime class and prior record level for inmates in prison at the end of the fiscal year.
Table I. B. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A
640
61
60
27
7
5
658
1,458
( 4%)
B1
473
351
182
128
22
20
0
1,176
( 3%)
B2
901
906
448
258
60
38
2
2,613
( 7%)
C
670
1,116
1,531
2,009
672
550
1,224
7,772
( 22%)
D
1,202
1,278
974
695
179
134
615
5,077
( 15%)
E
465
662
336
309
84
72
20
1,948
( 6%)
F
879
654
553
371
96
122
95
2,770
( 8%)
G
941
896
808
715
188
166
16
3,730
( 11%)
H
544
1,293
1,249
1,234
543
497
151
5,511
( 16%)
I
228
495
333
314
114
132
7
1,623
( 5%)
Other
13
2
0
0
0
1
1,337
1,353
( 4%)
6,956
7,714
6,474
6,060
1,965
1,737
4,125
35,031
Total (%)
( 20%)
( 22%)
( 18%)
( 17%)
( 6%)
( 5%)
( 12%)
Note: This total does not include 201 offenders committed as safekeepers.
15
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure I. B. 2 illustrates the crime type of the prison population at the end of the fiscal year for 1996 through 2006. There have been changes in the composition of the prison population during this time period, and these changes may continue over time. The proportion of property offenses in the prison population has decreased over the past ten years, from 29% of the population in 1996 to almost 17% in 2006. There has been an increase in the proportion of both public order crimes and crimes against a person in the prison population. Public order offenses comprised 24% of the population in 1996 and increased to 34% in 2006. In 1996, 47% of the population was incarcerated for crimes against a person and in 2006 it was 49%.
Figure I. B. 2: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year PersonPropertyPublic Order05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndPrison Population
Note: These totals do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.
Crimes against a person comprised the largest proportion of convictions for inmates in the prison population on June 30, 2006. The most frequent of these crimes were sexual offenses ( 25%), followed by robbery ( 24%) and second degree murder ( 17%). Approximately 5% of the prison population on June 30, 2006 was incarcerated for first degree murder. Inmates committed for public order crimes were the second most numerous. The most frequent of these crimes included drug crimes ( 44%) and habitual felon convictions ( 36%). Seven percent of inmates in prison for public order crimes were convicted for DWI. Inmates committed for property crimes represented the smallest proportion. The most frequent crimes in this category included breaking and entering ( 35%) and larceny ( 22%). Table I. B. 3 shows the crime type of inmates in prison at fiscal year end by felon or misdemeanant status.
16
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2006
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
otal
(%)
Crimes Against a Person
95
8,351
49%)
Property Crimes
5,734
33
,167
17%)
Public Order Crimes
,182
2,711
34%)
Not Reported
1
19
< 1%)
Total (%)
5,020
( 94%)
,210
( 6%)
19
(< 1%)
Inmate Activities
The Division of Prisons coordinates a wide range of inmate work, educational, and rehabilitative programs. Inmates are required to either work full- time or participate in a full- time program. Only inmates who pose a security risk, have health problems, or are in the admissions process are exempt from the policy.
Work
In each prison facility, inmates are assigned a variety of jobs. Inmates are paid an incentive wage, which is set by statute for the majority of these duties. Currently the incentive wage ranges from $. 40 to $ 1.00 per day depending on the work assignment. Most inmates who work ( 73%), do so inside prison facilities. Table I. B. 4 shows the average daily assignment by each category of job.
Table I. B. 4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category
Inmate Work Assignments
In Prison Facilities
Average Daily Assigned During 2005- 2006
Unit Services
5,431
Food Service
3,384
Correction Enterprises
1,904
Prison Maintenance
1,669
Construction
229
Other Jobs
1,210
Outside Prison Facilities
Road Squads
2,273
Community Work Crews
926
State and Local Government
691
Work Release
1,129
Total
18,847
Unit Services - The largest assignment in prison facilities is Unit Services. Prison inmates in these jobs perform janitorial and general maintenance duties. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
17
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Food Service – Inmates work in the kitchens of all prison facilities preparing and serving food to other inmates. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
Correction Enterprises - Correction Enterprises is a separate division of the Department of Correction, which administers industries at prison sites. Enterprise jobs provide opportunities to put close and medium custody inmates to work inside prisons. Inmates are employed making car license tags, street and highway signs, farming, food processing, printing, sewing, laundering, and manufacturing. These jobs teach workers job skills and a work ethic which will enable them to find employment upon release from prison. These jobs pay up to $ 3 per day based on skills required for the job.
Prison Maintenance - Prison inmates are also involved in groundskeeping, light construction, repair, and maintenance projects at prisons. These jobs include roofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, and other unit improvements.
Construction - In addition to cleaning and maintaining prisons, some inmates are assigned to new prison construction projects. Inmates are generally chosen based on pre- existing skills in the construction industry. Like the other categories of work, this experience gives inmates valuable work experience prior to release and helps to reduce the cost of new prison construction.
Road Squads - Minimum and medium custody inmates work on the state's roads, patching potholes, clearing right- of- ways and picking up litter. Medium custody inmates work under the supervision of armed correctional officers. Minimum custody inmates work under the direction of Department of Transportation employees.
Community Work Crew and State and Local Government Agencies - Minimum or medium custody inmates are assigned to Community Work Crews of ten inmates. One correctional officer supervises them and they perform short- term, labor- intensive projects such as hurricane cleanup, litter cleanup, painting schools and cleaning school buses. State and local government agencies have labor contracts for inmates to work for the agency, often involving janitorial services and groundskeeping.
Work Release - Inmates who have proven themselves trustworthy for limited release from custody are allowed to leave the prison unit for jobs. These inmates are nearing their release date and work for businesses in the community. North Carolina started the first work release program in the country in 1957. Inmates on work release receive prevailing market wages from their employers, but must pay a room- and- board fee to the prison unit. For fiscal year 2005- 2006 inmates paid the Department of Correction over $ 4.4 million in per diem and over $ 1.2 million for transportation and job- related expenses. They also paid child support and restitution totaling $ 1,549,608. During this period inmates paid an additional $ 1,765,114 for spousal support and other family expenses.
Programs
Inmates are recommended for participation in programs based on interests, abilities, needs and whether the time remaining in their sentence allows completion of the program. At large institutions, academic and vocational education programs are offered to inmates on a full- time basis. These programs are offered on a part- time basis at other institutions.
18
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 5: Inmate Program Assignments
Average Daily Assignment for 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Full Time
Part Time
Academic Education
2,002
1,953
Vocational Education
2,050
549
Life Skills Programs
206
4,068
Academic Program - The Division of Prisons works with the Community College System to provide a full range of academic programs in prison. Adult basic education is the primary academic program for inmates. It provides the basic knowledge, skills and attitudes to make adult and youth inmates literate. Educational programs also prepare inmates for meaningful and satisfying roles as working, contributing members of society. One hundred percent of prison facilities offer academic programs for inmates. These programs had an average monthly enrollment that exceeded 9,000 students in 2005. That same year, 1,729 inmates passed the General Education Development ( GED) test and 8,616 earned college certificates, diplomas or degrees. Associate degree programs are offered by the Community College System, and bachelor degree programs are offered at two prison sites through Shaw University, a private university based in Raleigh, NC. In addition, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has offered correspondence courses to inmates for more than 30 years. The Department of Correction contracts with the university to provide Independent Studies courses and a limited number of university credit classroom courses.
Vocational Program - A wide variety of vocational programs such as computer literacy, food service training, electrical engineering technology, brick masonry, and job readiness are provided through local community colleges. Participation in these programs can help inmates obtain work with Correction Enterprises or a work release assignment.
Life Skills Programs – Life skills programs include several types of programs such as parenting skills, team activities and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention ( CBI). CBI programs teach offenders new ways of thinking that can lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s awareness of self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social skills to assist the offender with interpersonal problems. These specific types of intervention programs assist offenders in “ restructuring” their thought process and teaches “ cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision- making and problem- solving. These programs are lead by prison or community college staff that have been trained by the Department of Correction.
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions
Inmate conformity to prison rules is necessary for the orderly, safe, and secure operation of correctional facilities. Effective, fair, and consistent disciplinary procedures enhance the orderly operation of the facilities and reinforce appropriate behavior and responsibility. The disciplinary offenses were reclassified in November 2000 into four classes from five, and all substance possession offenses ( e. g., alcohol or drugs) are now Class A. The most serious offenses remain in Class A, and Class D offenses are the least serious infractions. An inmate can be charged with an attempt to commit an offense, and that attempt is in the same class as the infraction itself.
In the 2005- 2006 fiscal year there were 58,764 infractions ( see Table I. B. 6 on page 21), which is a 0.8% increase over the number of infractions during the 2004- 2005 fiscal year ( 58,301 infractions). Almost
19
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
12% ( 6,879) were Class A infractions, of which 46% were for substance possession. The next most frequent Class A offense was assault on staff, with 777 in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. There were 10,893 Class B infractions, including sexual act, damaging property, weapon possession, interfering with staff and lock tampering. The majority of the infractions in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were for Class C offenses, with 34,257 or 58% of the total infractions for the year. Almost half of these, or 16,791 were for disobeying an order. Other Class C infractions include profane language, fighting, unauthorized leave, bartering, threatening staff, and theft of property. Possession of unauthorized items ( including clothing and money), being in an unauthorized location, and gambling are some of the infractions that make up the Class D infractions. Table I. B. 6, on page 21 shows a count of infractions for the fiscal year.
Presumptive punishments are established for each infraction such as: confinement in disciplinary segregation for up to 60 days, demotion in custody, sentence reduction credits, and suspension of privileges, including radio, organized sports, visitation, or other leisure time activities. There is also an administrative fee of ten dollars paid by inmates found guilty of committing an infraction, to offset the costs of staff time.
Escapes and Captures
The primary goal of the Department is to protect the community. However, some inmates escape from prison each year though most are apprehended. In 2005- 2006 there were 50 escapes. Minimum custody inmates are often on work release and participate in other activities in the community. Many escapes are the result of the minimum custody inmate not returning to the prison on time from his/ her job, so a capture is recorded the same day. All inmates who escaped during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were captured by the end of the February, 2007.
20
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2005- 2006
Infraction
Count
Substance Possession
3,164
Assault Staff ( with Weapon, Throwing Liquids or Sexual Intent)
777
Refuse to Submit to a Drug/ Breath Test
574
Assault Person with Weapon
614
Involvement with Gang or STG
589
Attempt Class A Offense
637
Other
524
Class A Total
6,879
Sexual Act
3,303
Damage State/ Another’s Property
867
Lock Tampering
1,032
Weapon Possession
622
High Risk Act
531
Interfere with Staff
459
Other
4,079
Class B Total
10,893
Disobey Order
16,791
Profane Language
7,071
Unauthorized Leave
2,193
Fighting
2,118
Threaten to Harm/ Injure Staff
1,307
Barter/ Trade or Loan Money
1,067
Misuse or Unauthorized Use of Phone/ Mail
960
Theft of Property
1,078
Other
1,672
Class C Total
34,257
Unauthorized Items ( No threat contraband)
2,464
Unauthorized Location
1,836
Unauthorized Funds
603
Gambling
434
Create Offensive Condition
298
Illegal Clothing
311
Other
789
Class D Total
6,735
Total Infractions
58,764
21
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 7: Demographics of Prison Population on June 30, 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
105
340
26
7
15
3
496
( 1%)
19- 21
626
1,386
163
61
64
4
2,304
( 6%)
22- 25
1,315
2,773
411
153
129
11
4,792
( 13%)
26- 30
1,753
3,826
604
249
189
26
6,647
( 18%)
31- 35
1,770
3,421
479
266
164
25
6,125
( 16%)
36- 40
1,782
2,903
292
262
205
17
5,461
( 15%)
41- 45
1,724
2,729
201
229
190
17
5,090
( 14%)
46- 50
1,187
1,711
142
131
90
11
3,272
( 9%)
51- 55
658
924
64
51
52
1
1,750
( 5%)
56- 60
377
416
28
22
14
0
857
( 2%)
61- 65
202
156
7
18
1
1
385
( 1%)
66- 70
105
50
4
10
1
1
171
(< 1%)
71+
69
41
4
1
2
0
117
(< 1%)
Total
11,673
20,676
2,425
1,460
1,116
117
37,467
(%)
( 31%)
( 55%)
( 6%)
( 4%)
( 3%)
( 0%)
Note: This total does not include 218 offenders committed as safekeepers.
22
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. C. Prison Releases
Prison Release Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 26,457 releases from prisons. This 7% increase in releases from the previous year continues the upward trend started in the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. Figure I. C. 1 shows prison release by year beginning with fiscal year 1995- 1996.
Figure I. C. 1: Prison Releases
Fiscal YearReleases2005- 200626,4572004- 200524,6182003- 200423,7092002- 200323,0342001- 200222,6382000- 200122,8061999- 200025,6141998- 199925,8591997- 199825,3261996- 199722,7891995- 199619,35705,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndingTotal
Type of Release
Releases from prison are affected by sentencing policies. Inmates are usually released from prison due to the expiration of their sentence, released on post- release ( under structured sentencing) or on parole ( sentences prior to Structured Sentencing). The majority ( 81%) of releases from prison in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were due to the expiration of an inmate’s sentence. Table I. C. 2 shows the exit type for inmates released from prison during Fiscal Year 2005- 2006.
Figure I. C. 2: Type of Releases 252 ( 1%) 1,718 ( 7%) 1,914 ( 7%) 21,413 ( 81%) 1,160 ( 4%) 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,000Expiration ofSentenceParolePost- ReleaseReleaseSafekeep/ PSDOtherExit TypeRelease 23
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The number of inmates on post- release supervision continues to increase steadily. In 1998- 1999 there were only 235 releases on post- release, 1,051 in 2000- 2001 and 1,914 in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. These are releases of inmates incarcerated for Class E and higher offenses under Structured Sentencing. Inmates who exit prison on post- release have a mandatory nine months of supervision upon release.
The releases due to parole have decreased steadily over the past few years, since only non- structured sentence inmates are eligible for parole. In fiscal year 1998- 1999, 21% of prison exits were for parole, 13% in 2000- 2001 and only 6% of prison exits for fiscal year 2005- 2006. This decrease in parole type exits is expected to continue since the proportion of the prison population sentenced prior to Structured Sentencing will continue to decrease. On June 30, 2006, 13% of the prison population was eligible for parole.
Safekeeper and Pre- sentenced diagnostic ( PSD) releases are un- sentenced inmates who are held temporarily in prison. Most prison exits in the category labeled “ Other” were court ordered releases, but also included the death of the inmate, Interstate Compact, and execution. Through the Interstate Compact, inmates are transferred to facilities in other states. There were six executions in 2005- 2006.
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
North Carolina enacted numerous sentencing laws in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that govern when and how inmates are released from prison. In 1994, North Carolina enacted Structured Sentencing guidelines. The purpose of Structured Sentencing is to reserve prison for the most serious and chronic offender, and to incarcerate those offenders for longer periods of time. Less serious and less chronic offenders receive punishments in the community, or shorter prison sentences. Structured Sentencing abolished discretionary parole release and authorized judges to set a minimum and maximum sentence for felons and a flat sentence for misdemeanants, based on the severity of the crime of conviction and the prior record level of the offender. Felony Structured Sentencing inmates must serve the entire minimum sentence and may serve the maximum sentence, an additional 20% above the minimum sentence. For example, an inmate must serve 5 years and may serve up to 6 years unless he/ she earns credits off the maximum sentence for good behavior, working and participating in programs. Therefore, all felony inmates sentenced under Structured Sentencing will serve at least 100% of their minimum sentence.
In FY 2005- 2006, 15,390 Structured Sentencing felons were released from prison. These inmates served, on average, 20.26 months in prison, serving 108% of their minimum sentence. Since Structured Sentencing is relatively new, these releases reflect inmates with relatively short sentences for less serious offenses. The amount of time served increases each year as inmates who receive longer sentences under Structured Sentencing are released. This increase is expected to continue for several years.
Judges order misdemeanants to serve a specific sentence and they can earn 4 days per month off their sentence for good behavior, working, and participating in programs. For example, a misdemeanor inmate who has a sentence of 4 months must serve 3.5 months and may serve up to 4 months. During this period there were 5,857 Structured Sentencing misdemeanants released, having served an average of 3.91 months and 95% of their sentence.
Prior to Structured Sentencing, inmates were sentenced under several different sentencing laws which allowed the Parole Commission to release inmates early from prison to parole. The major determinants of when inmates were released from prison under these parole- eligibility laws depended on the good time and gain time credits the inmate earned. Prior to Structured Sentencing, as soon as the inmate entered prison, he/ she was awarded good time credits which reduced the sentence by 50%, and he/ she could also earn additional gain time credits off of the sentence for positive behaviors.
24
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
In fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 401 non- Structured Sentencing felons released from prison for the first time. Those who were paroled and then returned to prison were excluded from these calculations. Since these inmates represented some very serious offenses, they served an average of 147 months before release. These inmates served, on average, 43% of their court- imposed sentences, due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules. During this period, 2,846 non- Structured Sentencing misdemeanants were released from prison; the majority was serving time for Driving While Impaired ( DWI) convictions that fall under the Safe Roads Act. These inmates served, on average, 6 months and 43% of their court- imposed sentence due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules.
25
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. D. Prison Population Projections
Table I. D. 1 shows 10- year prison population projections by fiscal year. The prison population projections were completed in two parts. The Sentencing Commission prepared prison population projections for all offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2006 ( new population). The Department of Correction prepared projections for all offenders in prison as of June 30, 2006 ( resident prison population). The final combined projections take into account the decline of the resident prison population ( structured sentencing releases, parole releases, and “ max- outs”) and the buildup of the new inmate population ( new sentences, probation revocations, parole revocations, and post- release supervision revocations). Added to these figures is the estimated number of safekeepers and DWI offenders held in the state prison system.
Table I. D. 1: Prison Population Projections
FISCAL
PROJECTION
YEAR
as of June 30
Estimate Of Expanded Operating Prison Capacity1
Estimate Of Standard Operating Prison Capacity2
2007
38,677
38,505
33,366
2008
39,621
38,505
33,366
2009
40,236
39,853
34,214
2010
41,021
39,853
34,214
2011
41,848
39,853
34,214
2012
42,718
39,853
34,214
2013
43,587
39,853
34,214
2014
44,470
39,853
34,214
2015
45,349
39,853
34,214
2016
46,219
39,853
34,214
Prepared January 2007 by the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission in conjunction with the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning
These projections include both the Expanded Operating Capacity ( EOC) 1 and the Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC) 2 of all prison facilities. Based on these figures, the projected prison population will exceed both standard and expanded operating prison capacity for all ten years of the projection. The projected increase in the prison population can be attributed to changes in two of the primary determining factors of the prison population: 1) an increase in the number of new convictions for new crimes, which directly impacts the number of prison admissions; and 2) Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA) and pre- FSA inmates are serving longer sentences than previously projected.
1 Expanded Operating Capacity ( EOC) is the number of inmates housed in dormitories that operate at varying percentages ( not to exceed 130%) beyond their Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC), plus the number of single cells with one inmate per cell, plus the number of single cells that house two inmates per cell that meet American Correctional Association ( ACA) standards for space per inmate.
2 Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC) is the number of single cells with one inmate per cell plus the number of inmates who can be housed in dormitories by dividing the gross square feet of each dormitory by 50 square feet and rounding to the closest double bunk configuration.
26
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. Division of Community Corrections
The Division of Community Corrections provides supervision of offenders sentenced to probation or released from the Division of Prisons on parole or post- release supervision. Probation/ parole officers supervise offenders in the community by enforcing compliance with the conditions of probation, parole or post- release supervision, and monitoring offender behavior. Officers refer offenders to rehabilitative services and work with other agencies to encourage participation in programs such as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, educational, and vocational training. As of June 30, 2006 there were 116,516 offenders under the supervision of the Division of Community Corrections.
The Structured Sentencing Act ( SSA), enacted in 1994, provides judicial guidelines to sentence offenders to a community punishment, intermediate punishment, or active sentence in prison. The SSA prioritizes prison resources for the most serious and chronic offenders and shifts some less serious, less chronic offenders from prison sentences to intermediate punishments in the community. Intermediate punishments are designed to be very intrusive and intense, restricting the offender’s liberty while they remain in the community; community punishments are not as restrictive. The judge determines whether to order an intermediate or a community punishment based on the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal record. Examples of community punishments are traditional probation, community service, and victim restitution. Examples of intermediate punishments are intensive supervision, day reporting centers, electronic house arrest, and residential treatment facilities.
In the 1990s the Division of Community Corrections developed a case management policy that complies with the intent of the Structured Sentencing Act. Offenders on probation, parole, or post- release supervision are supervised based on the court sentence received, conditions imposed, their behavior, and needs. If an offender initially receives an intermediate punishment in court, or if the Parole/ Post- Release Supervision Commission sets an intermediate sanction as a special condition when the offender is released from prison, then the offender will always be supervised at an intermediate supervision level. An offender who receives a community punishment will be supervised at the community supervision level. A community punishment offender who violates probation may subsequently receive an intermediate punishment in court. After completing the intermediate punishment, the offender may ( by demonstrating compliance) return to a community supervision level.
Intermediate supervision officers are required to verify the residence and employment of offenders and meet with offenders at their residence and/ or in the field both during the day and in the evenings and on weekends, including curfew checks at the residence. In addition, they contact the offender’s family, contact law enforcement, other criminal justice agencies, service agencies involved with the offender, and execute criminal record checks, and monitor court indebtedness on a frequent basis. Community supervision officers have similar requirements, but do not see offenders as often and do not perform curfew checks.
Intermediate and Intensive supervision officers have more work experience than community supervision officers, and they receive specialized training. They are required to conduct the vast majority of offender contacts in the field, away from the relative safety of the office. Intermediate officers have smaller caseload goals ( 60 active cases) than community supervision officers ( 110 active cases). Intensive officers have even lower caseload goals ( 25 active cases). Some districts have special operations officers who supervise specific populations ( e. g., sex offenders, domestic violence offenders). These officers have caseloads of 30.
The Division of Community Corrections also administers the Criminal Justice Partnership Program ( CJPP). The CJPP is a grant program to county government to operate community corrections programs.
27
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
County advisory boards determine the type of community corrections program to operate ( e. g., day
reporting centers, satellite substance abuse programs or resource centers). There are 92 counties involved in the Partnership initiative this fiscal year. These programs provide varying degrees of structure and monitoring to offenders, and a range of rehabilitative services.
Cost of Sanctions
The Department calculates an average cost of sanctions annually. The figures include the direct costs of supervision and indirect administrative costs. The average daily cost of supervising one offender ranges from $ 1.96 on community/ intermediate punishment to $ 14.97 on intensive probation/ parole.
Table II. 1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
Division of Community Corrections Programs
Daily Cost Per Offender
Community/ Intermediate Punishment
$ 1.96
Electronic House Arrest
$ 7.71
Intensive Probation/ Parole
$ 14.97
Criminal Justice Partnership Sentenced Offender Programs
$ 13.70
Drug Screening ( per specimen)
$ 3.23
Community Work Service Program
$ 0.69
28
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. A. Probation
Probation Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 63,208 new offender entries to probation, a slight increase from the past year’s entries. Figure II. A. 1 shows probation entries by felon or misdemeanant status.
Figure II. A. 1: Probation entries by crime class
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 200663,2082004- 200562,5562003- 200461,3502002- 200362,2622001- 200262,7462000- 200160,8451999- 200060,1141998- 199960,3781997- 199861,7691996- 199758,4601995- 199651,544010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal YearProbationersTotalFelonMisdemeanant
The vast majority ( 71%) of entries to probation were misdemeanants. Felons represent 28% of the probation entries for fiscal year 2005- 2006. The proportion of felons to misdemeanants has remained very consistent over the past ten years.
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Probation Entries
The crimes of offenders entering probation supervision are grouped into one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person. The most frequent crime type for probation entries was public order crimes, accounting for 55% of all entries to probation during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. The predominant public order crimes, contributing the majority of entries to probation this fiscal year, were drugs offenses with 14,611 ( 42%), driving while impaired with 9,179 ( 26%) and other traffic violations with 7,321 ( 21%).
Property crimes accounted for 29% of all entries to probation. The most frequent offense in this category was larceny with 7,181 ( 40%) probationers, followed by breaking and entering with 2,925 ( 16%), fraud with 2,867 ( 16%), other property offenses 1,809 ( 10%), worthless checks with 1,318 ( 7%) and forgery with 1,151 ( 6%).
There were 10,004 entries to probation for crimes against a person, contributing 16% of all entries to probation for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. The majority of these crimes were assaults with 7,754 ( 78%) probationers. This category also includes sexual offenses with 895 ( 9%) and robbery with 573 ( 6%).
29
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure II. A. 2: Probation entries by crime type 307 (< 1%) 10,004 ( 16%) 34,845 ( 55%) 18,052 ( 29%) 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesNot ReportedCrime TypeEntries
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act prescribes punishments in the community based on the seriousness of the crime and criminal history. The probation population on June 30, 2006 was 112,630. Sixty- five percent of this population were misdemeanants. Table II. A. 1 shows the distribution of the misdemeanant population by their primary offense sentence.
Table II. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
2,937
3,187
2,050
31
8,205
( 11%)
1
13,457
13,940
7,772
127
35,296
( 48%)
2
3,635
3,361
1,294
16
8,306
( 11%)
3
995
883
412
6
2,296
( 3%)
Non- Structured Sentencing Crimes
0
0
0
18,927
18,927
( 26%)
Undefined
0
0
0
5
5
(< 1%)
Total
21,024
21,371
11,528
19,112
73,035
(%)
( 29%)
( 29%)
( 16%)
( 26%)
Almost half ( 48%) of the misdemeanant probation population was convicted of Class 1 offenses. The most frequent crime categories in the Class 1 offenses were traffic violations ( 26%), larceny ( 22%), drug offenses ( 21%), fraud ( 6%) and assault ( 5%). Class A1 offenses contribute 11% to the misdemeanant population, the majority of which were assaults ( 85%). Class 2 contributes the next largest percentage of misdemeanant probationers, with the primary offenses in this class being worthless checks ( 27%), other public order offenses ( 19%), assault ( 17%), and traffic violations ( 16%). The remaining class, Class 3, consists largely of non- trafficking drugs offenses ( 46%), public order offenses ( 19%) and larceny ( 18%) convictions.
30
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The second largest group of misdemeanors under supervision was probationers with non- Structured Sentencing crimes, which comprised 26% of the population at the end of the fiscal year. These offenders were sentenced for Driving While Impaired under separate legislation, the Safe Roads Act of 1983. Other non- Structured Sentencing offenders included Interstate Compact and offenders supervised under Deferred Prosecution.
Table II. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
E
859
764
20
12
1
1
36
1,693
( 4%)
F
1,573
1,046
452
34
1
1
83
3,190
( 8%)
G
1,398
1,551
712
364
4
1
53
4,083
( 10%)
H
6,195
5,330
2,157
1,089
230
21
508
15,530
( 40%)
I
4,561
4,726
1,848
715
127
95
326
12,398
( 32%)
Non- Structured Sentencing Crimes
248
23
7
1
1
0
1,593
1,873
( 5%)
Undefined
142
86
14
8
1
1
247
499
( 1%)
14,976
13,526
5,210
2,223
365
120
2,846
39,266
Total (%)
( 38%)
( 34%)
( 13%)
( 6%)
( 1%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
Note: The Undefined category contains offenders that had missing crime information.
The felony sentencing table above describes felons in the probation population at the end of fiscal year 2005- 2006. The felony crime class with the largest number in the probation population is Class H, representing 40% of all felons on probation. The offenses in this crime class included drugs charges ( 25%), fraud ( 23%), breaking and entering ( 19%), and larceny ( 19%). Class I offenses represented 32% of probationers with felony convictions, largely non- trafficking drugs offenses ( 69%) and forgery ( 10%). Classes E, F and G represented the smallest proportion of felons with a structured sentence on probation on June 30, 2006. Though the majority of these crimes were drugs offenses ( 26%), these classes also included more serious crimes such as sexual offenses ( 18%), assault ( 17%), and robbery ( 10%).
Type of Probation Exits
Of the 63,233 probation exits in fiscal year 2005- 2006, 18% were completions. In order to exit probation supervision as a completion the offender must serve the entire term sentenced by the court and meet all conditions of probation.
Revocations represent 34% of all exits from probation ( probation revocation rate). An offender is revoked due to non- compliance with the conditions of probation which includes committing a new crime. Probation may also be revoked for technical violations of probation such as positive drug tests, non- reporting, failing to attend treatment, among others. The exits classified as Elect to Serve ( 3%) are often combined with the revocations for an overall revocation rate, because the offender will elect to serve his or her suspended sentence rather than comply with additional sanctions imposed as a result of the violation process. Both exits result in incarceration.
31
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Early terminations, which accounted for 31% of exits, may be a successful or unsuccessful end of probation supervision. The court may satisfactorily terminate probation for several reasons. These may be cases in which all conditions of probation were met early and the supervision ended. Other possibilities for exits in the early termination category are considered unsuccessful. Examples are, probation cases in which the offender absconded and is not apprehended within three years of the order for arrest date ( case is moved to unsupervised probation with District Attorney approval) or received new criminal charges and probation ended due to incarceration.
Figure II. A. 3: Probation Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year 8,823( 14%) 1,942( 3%) 19,904( 31%) 21,317( 34%) 11,247( 18%) 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000CompletionRevocationEarly TerminationElect to ServeOther Exits
Finally, the “ Other Exits” category includes exits due to the offender’s death, the closure of a case sentenced in another state but supervised in North Carolina through an Interstate Compact Agreement, or other termination not further described.
32
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. B. Post- Release Supervision
Post- Release Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 1,764 entries to post- release supervision. The number of post- release supervision entries has increased steadily since the 1996- 1997 fiscal year due to the Structured Sentencing Act. Figure II. B. 1 illustrates this increase.
Figure II. B. 1: Post- release entries by fiscal year
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 20061,7642004- 20051,6882003- 20041,4282002- 20031,4032001- 20021,1512000- 20011,0411999- 20009371998- 19997271997- 19983941996- 19978302004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,00096- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal Year
Post- release supervision provides oversight during the period of re- entry in the community for serious offenders who have been sentenced and served prison terms. This form of supervision was incorporated into the Structured Sentencing Act for offenders who serve long prison sentences and need control and assistance readjusting to life outside of the correctional institution. All offenders serving a prison sentence for a Class B1 through E felony conviction are supervised for nine months to five years, depending on the offense, after completion of their required prison term.
Post- Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids
Fiscal year 1996- 1997 was the first year after the adoption of Structured Sentencing that cases were assigned to post- release supervision. The Sentencing Grid in Table II. B. 1 reflects the population on post- release supervision at the end of fiscal year 2005- 2006. The number of offenders in the grid is relatively small due to the long prison sentences for the offenses in these sentencing grid cells.
This is the fifth year offenders convicted of Class B2 offenses have entered post- release. In addition, this is only the third year that Class B1 offenders have been released on post- release as a result of the long sentences for those crimes. The distribution of the offenders on post- release supervision will not adequately reflect the population convicted of these crimes for many years due to the length of the sentences they serve. There were 1,868 inmates on post- release at the end of this fiscal year. This figure reflects a 13.4% increase over the population of 1,647 on June 30, 2005.
More offenders on post- release supervision on June 30, 2006 were convicted of Class E offenses than any other offenses. Within Class E, the majority of the convictions were assaults ( 58%). Other crime categories for Class E offenses on post- release supervision were kidnapping and abduction ( 13%), robbery ( 12%), and sexual assault ( 10%). All inmates released to post- release supervision for conviction of sexual offenses are supervised for five years. Among inmates supervised for Class D offenses, 64%
33
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
had robbery convictions. The other predominant crime categories in Class D were sexual assault ( 15%), manslaughter ( 11%) and burglary ( 7%). The majority of Class C offenders were habitual felons ( 59%), followed by sexual assaults ( 29%) and assaults ( 7%). As a group, offenders on post- release on June 30, 2006 had most recently been incarcerated for robbery ( 24%), assault ( 23%), sex offenses ( 18%) and as habitual felons ( 18%).
Table II. B. 1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post- Release Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
B1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(< 1%)
B2
27
11
2
0
0
0
0
40
( 2%)
C
151
136
147
96
27
3
2
562
( 30%)
D
229
211
98
33
8
0
1
580
( 31%)
E
199
260
110
77
15
7
0
668
( 36%)
Undefined
0
3
2
1
0
0
11
17
(< 1%)
606
622
359
207
50
10
14
1,868
Total (%)
( 32%)
( 33%)
( 19%)
( 11%)
( 3%)
( 1%)
( 1%)
Type of Post- Release Exits
The majority ( 79%) of exits from post- release supervision were completions. When the offender completes this period of supervision, the sentence for which the offender was placed on supervision is terminated. An offender on post- release supervision may be revoked for a technical violation such as positive drug tests, non- reporting, failing to attend treatment, or for additional criminal convictions. There were 266 revocations. Eleven offenders died.
Figure II. B. 2: Post- Release Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year 1,253 ( 79%) 266 ( 17%) 68 ( 4%) 02004006008001,0001,2001,400CompletionRevocationOther Exits 34
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. C. Parole
Parole Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 1,870 entries to parole supervision. Overall, there has been a steady decline in parole entries over the past nine years. However, this year, there was a 2% increase over last year. Figure II. C. 1 illustrates this trend.
Figure II. C. 1: Parole entries FY 1995- 1996 through 2005- 2006.
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 20061,8702004- 20051,8312003- 20041,8412002- 20032,0972001- 20022,4352000- 20013,1871999- 20004,2981998- 19995,7471997- 19988,2241996- 19979,9561995- 199610,14102,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal Year
This decline in entries to parole is due to the adoption of Structured Sentencing. The Structured Sentencing Act eliminated parole for offenders sentenced under those laws. The inmates who are eligible for parole were sentenced for convictions under other sentencing laws. Non- Structured Sentencing inmates comprised approximately 13% of the prison population on June 30, 2006. Parole entries decreased for several years, but have recently stabilized. Nearly half the entries to parole are sentenced under DWI laws, with another 16% from Interstate Compact cases.
Crime Type of Parole Population
There were 2,018 offenders on parole supervision on June 30, 2006. Figure II. C. 2 shows the crime types of the parole population. The majority of this population was convicted of crimes against a person ( 41%). The majority of which were homicides – 91 first degree murder, 230 second degree murder and 29 manslaughter. This was followed by robbery ( 252), assault ( 112) and sex offenses ( 89). Public order crimes that this population was convicted of included driving while impaired ( 395) and drugs offenses ( 259). The most frequent property crimes were burglary ( 114), breaking and entering ( 99), larceny ( 56), and fraud ( 23).
35
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure II. C. 2: Crime types of parole population on June 30, 2006 87 ( 4%) 771 ( 38%) 323 ( 16%) 837 ( 41%) 01002003004005006007008009001,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesOther
Type of Parole Exits
The majority ( 75%) of exits from parole supervision were completions. Revocations decreased 50% during fiscal year 2005- 2006. There were 103 ( 6%) exits from parole supervision due to revocation compared to 205 in the previous year. An offender on parole supervision may be revoked for the same types of technical violation as probation and post- release cases. The “ Other” category includes cases in which there was a closure of a case supervised in North Carolina but sentenced in another state, a successful or unsuccessful termination, or the offender died – 19 offenders on parole died last year.
Figure II. C. 3: Parole Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
319 ( 19%) 103 ( 6%) 1,298 ( 75%) 02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,600CompletionRevocationOther Exits
36
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. D. Community Corrections Demographics
Table II. D. 1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
2,120
2,758
405
595
645
65
6,588
( 10%)
19- 21
2,919
2,858
615
910
753
68
8,123
( 12%)
22- 25
3,294
3,541
1,077
1,127
1,029
110
10,178
( 15%)
26- 30
3,222
3,671
1,067
1,194
1,064
108
10,326
( 15%)
31- 35
2,862
2,849
766
1,152
858
87
8,574
( 13%)
36- 40
2,588
2,589
466
1,020
768
59
7,490
( 11%)
41- 45
2,452
2,480
291
995
710
45
6,973
( 10%)
46- 50
1,622
1,688
165
553
452
35
4,515
( 7%)
51- 55
804
996
67
229
200
11
2,307
( 3%)
56- 60
424
439
25
100
67
4
1,059
( 2%)
61- 65
155
178
14
47
15
4
413
(< 1%)
66- 70
84
83
2
14
4
0
187
(< 1%)
71+
53
49
1
5
1
0
109
(< 1%)
22,599
24,179
4,961
7,941
6,566
596
66,842
Total (%)
( 34%)
( 36%)
( 7%)
( 12%)
( 10%)
( 1%)
Table II. D. 2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
1,717
2,328
332
441
547
50
5,415
( 5%)
19- 21
4,159
4,277
847
1,135
1,042
96
11,556
( 10%)
22- 25
5,909
6,359
1,918
1,796
1,837
187
18,006
( 15%)
26- 30
6,256
7,237
2,454
2,201
2,258
188
20,594
( 18%)
31- 35
5,262
5,541
1,684
2,123
1,884
173
16,667
( 14%)
36- 40
4,781
4,797
1,007
1,932
1,560
128
14,205
( 12%)
41- 45
4,580
4,364
605
1,897
1,464
95
13,005
( 11%)
46- 50
3,104
3,098
374
1,144
910
64
8,694
( 7%)
51- 55
1,620
1,884
150
480
446
26
4,606
( 4%)
56- 60
862
919
50
213
160
10
2,214
( 2%)
61- 65
390
347
27
90
50
6
910
(< 1%)
66- 70
192
155
11
27
14
0
399
(< 1%)
71+
134
87
3
14
7
0
245
(< 1%)
38,966
41,393
9,462
13,493
12,179
1,023
116,516
Total (%)
( 33%)
( 36%)
( 8%)
( 12%)
( 10%)
( 1%)
37
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders
Intermediate sanctions are those which are more severe and restrictive than traditional probation but less severe and restrictive than prison. Intermediate sanctions are also more costly than traditional probation but less costly than incarceration in prison. They provide graduated punishment or control in the community by increasing or decreasing supervision based on the offender’s behavior. Confinement in prison or jail always remains an option for noncompliance with the court or Parole/ PRS Commission’s conditions. The six intermediate sanctions in North Carolina are listed in the table below.
Table II. E. 1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Began in
Population
Sanction
Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
as of June 30, 2006
Intensive Supervision
13,252
6,492
Electronic House Arrest
2,951
921
Day Reporting Centers
1,550
773
Continuous or Non- continuous Split Sentence/ Special Probation
4,633
1,379
Residential Community Correction Facility
Drug Treatment Court
1,028
476
465
443
Intensive Supervision: The Division continued operation of the Intensive Sanction during the year. While Surveillance Officers ( SOs) and Intensive officers ( ICOs) no longer work together as a team, they are both involved, at least to some degree with supervising cases which require intensive supervision. The SO provides assistance in several areas now, one of which is to help with intensive supervision by making curfew checks. The ICO handles intensive cases for supervision in addition to handling other types of cases.
Electronic House Arrest ( EHA): The Division continued its operation of the EHA Sanction during the year, combining officer contact with radio/ computer technology to monitor the offender. The computer, radio, and communication technologies provide assistance with control elements of supervision while Division Intermediate officers focus on supervision and treatment components. In this most restrictive community sanction, offenders are allowed to leave their residence only for treatment, employment, or education purposes.
Day Reporting Centers: Criminal Justice Partnership funded centers continued operations across the state, focusing on program/ service delivery to offenders. Offenders assigned to this sanction report to the center on a structured and frequent basis, receiving such services as substance abuse treatment, vocational training, GED, and cognitive behavioral interventions. County government or non- profit agency employees operate the centers, with the Division’s Intermediate Officers supervising the offenders and serving as case managers while maintaining a presence within the facilities.
Continuous or Non- Continuous Split Sentence/ Special Probation: A split sentence is imposed by the court and includes a period of incarceration, up to 6 months, which the offender must serve. The offender may have a sentence which allows him to serve only on weekends. In a continuous sentence, the offender serves time with no break ( e. g., serves 6 months continuously instead of having sentence broken into weeks and weekends).
38
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Residential Treatment: Residential treatment facilities, operated outside the scope of the Division, exist to address specific treatment or behavior needs. Offenders ordered to participate in this sanction must spend a specific period of time living within the facility, usually from a 30- day period to as much as a two- year period. Most residential programs are operated by the non- profit sector, although the Department of Correction does operate one residential treatment program, DART Cherry therapeutic community.
Drug Treatment Court: Drug Treatment Court uses a team approach that includes representatives from several local District stakeholders. After determining the needs of the Drug Treatment Court participant, a common case plan is developed with each member of the team having a specific role. The participant is placed under the supervision of a Drug Treatment Court Probation Officer. The probation officer provides community corrections case management.
39
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives
The Division of Community Corrections offers a number of programs for offenders to participate in during their sentence of supervision. These programs assist in supervision and provide a specialized intervention to offenders.
Community Service Work Program:
The Community Services Work Program provides oversight of offenders ordered to perform community service hours for criminal offenses, including DWI offenses. Offenders are assigned to perform service to local communities in an effort to promote rehabilitation and restore or improve the community. Over 3,500 agencies utilize community service offenders. During this fiscal year, the position of District Lead Coordinator was implemented in three judicial districts. In these districts, the Lead Coordinators provided oversight of the coordinators who assist in court processing. Additionally, a State Lead Coordinator was appointed to oversee program operation and automation issues. The 137 Community Service Coordinators enrolled 56,150 offenders in the Community Service Work Program. Offenders completed 1,653,828 hours. The types of work performed were general labor, skilled labor, professional labor, and litter pick- up. The total dollar value of the hours performed, based on the type of the labor was $ 8,597,771.31. Community services fees were collected in the amount of $ 7,687,043.31.
Sex Offender Control:
The mission of the Sex Offender Control Program is to enhance public safety and prevent further victimization through teamwork with treatment providers, victim’s groups, and other criminal justice agencies. All offenders ordered to the Sex Offender Control Program are required to abide by the Sex Offender Control Program Special Conditions. These conditions prohibit: offender contact with victims, possession of pornography, and travel and presence in certain locations. Other conditions of this program require the offender to submit to psychological and physiological assessments, as well as warrantless searches. Sex offender treatment providers must agree to abide by guidelines and philosophy established by the Division of Community Corrections for the treatment of sex offenders. There were 830 offenders under the Sex Offender Control Program at the end of this fiscal year.
Domestic Violence Offender Control:
During FY 2005- 2006, the Domestic Violence Control Program continued to strengthen and grow within the Division of Community Corrections. The Division has over 80 specialized Domestic Violence Intermediate officers in 19 districts statewide. The goals of the program are to:
• Provide close supervision and control of domestic violence offenders
• Enhance the safety of domestic violence victims
• Ensure that the batterer completes treatment
• Coordinate the efforts of the courts, law enforcement, treatment providers and victim advocates
There were 1,491 offenders in the Domestic Violence Program at the end of FY 2005- 2006. This number has steadily increased over the past few years, and all indicators point to a continuation of this trend. Rigorous supervision of offenders is a vital part of a comprehensive approach to protecting victims and holding intimate partner domestic violence offenders accountable. This Division is committed to providing appropriate supervision to this population, and will continue to develop and strengthen its supervision standards, as well as train staff in the accurate assessment and effective case planning of domestic violence offenders.
Schools Partnership:
There are over 80 School Partnership officers supervising student probationers in both urban and rural areas. In the urban areas, officers are assigned to individual schools that significantly improve the
40
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
working relationship with school officials. There were 308 offenders in this program at the end of the fiscal year.
The School Partnership Program continues to be a very successful program and DCC realizes that a earning a high school diploma/ GED is one of the most important accomplishments that youthful offenders can achieve. By working closely with school officials, probation officers can address issues on the front end before they escalate to the level of suspension or expulsion from school.
Transition Services, JobStart II and The Going Home Initiative:
The Division of Community Corrections recognizes there are many challenges facing individuals who are reentering society after a period of incarceration. Most of the inmates currently in prison will be released to live in the community at some point. The Division of Community Corrections is involved in planning, developing, and implementing strategies that will have a positive impact on individuals who are seeking reunification with family and the community. A key component of transition services is collaboration with other stakeholders, such as the Division of Prisons, the Office of Transition Services, the faith community, and other advocacy groups. Efforts are directed toward providing a continuity of programs and services to released offenders.
JobStart II is an offender- reentry pilot project that assists selected inmates who have marketable work skills with planning for employment following release. Inmates who complete the pre- release phase of the project have been released with extensive preparation for addressing reentry needs such as, conducting a successful job search and employment retention. In the post- release phase of the project, probation officers assist participating ex- offenders as they pursue their job search plans, secure employment and adjust to life in the community. The goal of JobStart II is to document strategies the Department may use to strengthen offender preparation for successfully re- entering the workplace. JobStart II has been administered by Research and Planning and is scheduled to end on September 30, 2006.
The Going Home Initiative ( GHI) grant is also administered by Research and Planning and has been extended until June, 2007. In addition to the counties currently being served by GHI, six additional counties are being targeted as areas to develop local partnerships. Those additional counties are: Cumberland, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, and New Hanover. Serious and violent offenders who are within a year of release are eligible for the GHI program. The three phases of the program focus efforts on the development of model reentry programs that begin in correctional institutions and continue throughout an offender's transition to, and stabilization in the community. Phase 1 prepares participating offenders to reenter society by offering education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training, mentoring, and full diagnostic and risk assessment. Phase 2 emphasizes the involvement of community- based transition programs, which offer education, housing, monitoring, mentoring, life skills training, assessment, job skills development, and mental health and substance abuse treatment to offenders immediately following release. Phase 3 connects the ex- offender to a network of social services agencies and community- based organizations in order to provide ongoing services and positive mentoring relationships after the individual has left the supervision of the Department of Correction. In Phases 2 and 3, probation officers take over the case management duties and assist ex- offenders as they work towards their reentry goals.
The Division of Community Corrections is aware of the special needs of the target population, as well as legislative mandates applicable to the target population. The goal is to form a seamless system of reentry for offenders so they will have local resources available to them upon release, thus increasing the likelihood of a successful reintegration into the community, thereby reducing recidivism rates.
41
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Hispanic Services:
The Division of Community Corrections Hispanic Services committee has been on the forefront of developing a protocol for effectively communicating with North Carolina’s Spanish speaking population. During the decade of 1990- 2000, the Hispanic population in North Carolina grew by 394% ( the highest growth rate of any state). Current population trends indicate that North Carolina will continue to lead the nation in growth rate in the Hispanic segment of the population. During the fiscal year, 2005- 2006, the Hispanic Services Committee developed a brochure entitled “ Completing Probation/ Parole Successfully”. This brochure has been distributed to all field staff and is also available on online.
Victim Notification Program:
The Division of Community Corrections’ Automated Notification Program has been in operation for two years. The program’s primary function was to ensure the victim notifications were correct according to General Statute 15A- 837, which outlines the responsibilities of the Division regarding the Crime Victim’s Right Act. The notification letters are generated by updates made to offenders’ records in the OPUS ( Offender Population Unified System). The Notification Program generates 25 types of letters, notifying victims of changes in the offenders’ supervision. The DCC Administrative Office Processing Assistants send out approximately 70- 100 victim letters each day, and receive an average of 20 victim calls per day.
In addition to notification, it is the Division’s goal to provide advocacy for the victim community. The Victim Advocate Coordinators in the four Judicial Divisions act as liaisons between the agency and the victims. They handle concerns for all high profile cases, including domestic violence and sex offenses, by offering comprehensive answers to victim’s questions about probation, parole, and post- release supervision. In these positions, they also work with local district attorneys’ offices, victim witness legal assistants, and clerk’s offices to develop and establish a relationship of outreach and education.
Victim contact is primarily by letter and phone. Advocates, who are home as duty station employees, receive an average of 30 calls per day on toll free telephone lines. The advocates also attend probation violation hearings with victims, upon request. There were 4,654 victims who had registered for services as of the end of the fiscal year.
42
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. G. Supervised Population Projections
Each year the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning projects the total number of offenders who will be under probation, post- release and parole supervision at the end of the fiscal year. The statistical model projects the supervision population based on aggregate data trends. The primary factors that influence the population projections are the projected number of entries to supervision and the estimated average length of stay for various supervision levels. The population projection integrates Structured Sentencing probation entry projections for the next five years provided by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Length of stay and entries to probation for Driving While Impaired, post- release supervision and parole are derived by Research and Planning staff based on historical trends.
Table II. G. 1: Total Supervision Projections ( Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th of Each Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total Supervised Projection Population
Population Projection by Type of Supervision**
Required Officer Resources
Current Officer Resources
103,054
5,664
Intensive
227
294
37,334
Intermediate
622
516
6,243
Special Ops***
208
172
2006- 2007
53,812
Community
489
509
104,201
5,747
Intensive
230
294
37,772
Intermediate
630
516
6,317
Special Ops***
211
172
2007- 2008
54,365
Community
494
509
105,365
5,831
Intensive
233
294
38,219
Intermediate
637
516
6,391
Special Ops***
213
172
2008- 2009
54,924
Community
499
509
106,544
5,916
Intensive
237
294
38,674
Intermediate
645
516
6,467
Special Ops***
216
172
2009- 2010
55,486
Community
504
509
107,742
6,004
Intensive
240
294
39,139
Intermediate
652
516
6,545
Special Ops***
218
172
2010- 2011
56,054
Community
510
509
* An absconder is an offender on probation who is actively avoiding supervision by making his/ her whereabouts unknown to the supervising officer. The Division of Community Corrections currently assigns the responsibility for capturing absconders to surveillance officers. Once the absconder is captured, he/ she returns to active supervision by the probation/ parole officer.
** Due to rounding, the sum of population projection by type of supervision may not equal total supervised projection.
*** Special operations officers are intermediate officers who supervise special populations ( e. g., sex offenders, domestic violence offenders).
The analysis shows that resources for Intensive Supervision needs will be more than adequate through FY 2010- 2011. Intermediate Supervision resources, without Special Operations cases, remain significantly below the required level to meet the supervision caseload goal of 60. Intermediate Supervision resources for Special Operations cases are also lower than the required level to meet the supervision caseload goal
43
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
of 30. Community Supervision resources are above the number of officers needed to maintain a caseload goal of 110 except in FY 2010- 2011 where one additional officer will be needed.
44
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program
The Criminal Justice Partnership Act of 1994 expands sentencing options by adding community- based sanctions for offenders receiving non- prison sentences. The Act created the Criminal Justice Partnership Program ( CJPP), which provides state funds to help counties create sentenced offender and pretrial release programs. A local advisory board is responsible for developing, implementing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating a local community corrections plan.
The State- County Criminal Justice Partnership Act established a grant program for counties that is administered by the Department of Correction. The legislative goals of the Partnership Act include the following:
• To reduce recidivism
• To reduce probation violations
• To reduce drug and alcohol dependence, and
• To reduce the cost of incarceration to the State and to counties.
There are two categories of CJPP local programs, Sentenced Offender ( SOP) and Pretrial Release ( PTR) programs. Examples of Sentenced Offender programs include day reporting centers, satellite substance abuse and resource service centers. As of June 30, 2006, in North Carolina 92 of the 100 counties are participating in the Partnership operating 82 programs. These programs include 20 Day Reporting Centers, 44 Satellite Substance Abuse Centers, 18 Resource Centers, and 20 Pretrial Release Programs.
Although the counties have wide latitude on program design, all of the sentenced offender programs provide some combination of substance abuse treatment, education and employment programs. Day Reporting Centers combine sanctions and services. Offenders must report as required and participate in assigned services. Satellite substance abuse centers provide a range of treatment services, on- site and off- site. Resource Centers coordinate a variety of program interventions, some on- site and others off- site.
The CJPP cost per offender per day for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year for the Sentenced Offender programs was $ 6.28 for Day Reporting Centers, $ 3.65 for Resource Centers, $ 3.23 for Satellite Substance Abuse Centers, and $ 0.31 for Pretrial Release Offenders. Cost is calculated by dividing total funds allocated to local CJPP programs by an estimated average daily population in CJPP programs. Any administrative cost for state CJPP, DCC and DOC staff are then added.
CJPP programs store data in a computer system called the CJPP Information Management System ( IMS). The data in this document represent only what CJPP IMS users entered in the system, so the figures may not be representative of all program activities. The data were extracted from the CJPP IMS system. Data for participants in the Sentenced Offender programs were also obtained from the Department of Correction's Offender Population Unified System ( OPUS).
45
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. A Day Reporting Centers
Day Reporting Centers ( DRC) are facilities that serve as an intermediate punishment. Offenders are required to report and comply with a structured schedule that includes activities such as working, counseling, treatment, cognitive behavioral interventions, life skills training, educational or vocational classes, employment training, and/ or community work projects.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a DRC include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment, those required to attend by the Post- Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole, post- release supervision or probationers required to attend, by the court as a result of a probation violation. Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a DRC.
During the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, there were 1,624 admissions to DRC programs. Of the offenders admitted to local DRC programs during FY 2005- 2006, the state courts referred 945 ( 58%), 90 ( 6%) admissions were referred by probation officers, 529 ( 32%) were from a probation violation court order, and 59 ( 4%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission. There was one offender record which had no referral source indicated.
Figure III. A. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions 90 ( 6%) 59 ( 4%) 945 ( 58%) 529 ( 32%) 05001,0001,500State CourtsDelegated AuthorityProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Day Reporting Centers, 40% were misdemeanants. More than half ( 60%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next two largest misdemeanant crime class contributors to CJPP admissions were Class 2 and Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class 2 were convicted of public order and assault, and 83% of those in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
46
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table III. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
20
43
24
1
88
( 13%)
1
131
154
99
5
389
( 59%)
2
36
48
12
0
96
( 15%)
3
17
22
9
0
48
( 7%)
Other/ Undefined
32
1
0
0
33
( 5%)
Total
236
268
144
6
654
(%)
( 36%)
( 41%)
( 22%)
( 1%)
The majority ( 60%) of Day Reporting Center admissions for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were felony offenders. Seventy- three percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class H, I, and G offenses were non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and there were 49 admissions for Class G offenses that included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
E
23
16
2
0
0
0
0
41
( 4%)
F
20
15
5
0
0
0
0
40
( 4%)
G
44
60
20
12
0
0
0
136
( 14%)
H
135
165
64
21
8
0
0
393
( 41%)
I
87
139
63
24
1
2
0
316
( 33%)
Other
25
4
5
4
4
1
1
44
( 5%)
334
399
159
61
13
3
1
970
Total (%)
( 34%)
( 41%)
( 16%)
( 6%)
( 1%)
(< 1%)
(< 1%)
DRC Program Utilization
There were 2,339 offenders that utilized DRC services during fiscal year 2005- 2006, which represents 77% of the yearly service goal. Table III. A. 3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each DRC program.
47
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table III. A. 3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006
Percent of Offender
Location
Population on July 1, 2005
Entries
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Goal Utilized
Bertie
15
56
71
100
71%
Buncombe
18
37
55
90
61%
Burke
22
13
35
60
58%
Cleveland
25
56
81
130
62%
Cumberland
69
83
152
205
74%
Davidson
23
52
75
150
50%
Durham
65
117
182
220
83%
Forsyth
91
191
282
400
71%
Gaston
56
133
189
240
79%
Guilford
14
53
67
120
56%
Halifax
9
54
63
95
66%
Hertford
30
50
80
80
100%
Mecklenburg
76
115
191
300
64%
Moore
63
129
192
120
160%
New Hanover
25
89
114
115
99%
Northampton
20
48
68
45
151%
Onslow
14
52
66
95
69%
Randolph
33
116
149
160
93%
Wake
27
118
145
200
73%
Wayne
20
62
82
100
82%
TOTAL
715
1,624
2,339
3,025
77%
Type of Exits
There were 1,637 exits from DRC programs during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. Five hundred sixty- one ( 34%) were exited by successful completion, and 77 % of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The most frequent type of exit from DRC programs is an unsuccessful removal ( 44%). This occurs when an offender is not adequately participating in programs, which is a violation of their conditions of supervision. The “ Other” category includes 68 offenders who transferred from the program, never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical reasons ( 4%).
48
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure III. A. 2: DRC Type of Exits
0100200300400500600700800Successful CompletionUnsuccessful RemovalProb Tech ViolationsOtherExit TypeExits
Table III. A. 4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
48
161
9
7
18
0
243
( 15%)
19- 21
80
216
4
17
26
2
345
( 21%)
22- 25
77
203
2
31
25
0
338
( 21%)
26- 30
39
118
1
28
22
0
208
( 13%)
31- 35
37
50
2
22
14
0
125
( 8%)
36- 40
31
63
0
16
19
0
129
( 8%)
41- 45
33
41
0
17
23
1
115
( 7%)
46- 50
20
34
0
9
10
0
73
( 4%)
51- 55
10
22
0
2
2
0
36
( 2%)
56- 60
6
3
0
0
0
0
9
(< 1%)
61- 65
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
(< 1%)
TOTAL
382
913
18
149
159
3
1,624
(%)
( 24%)
( 56%)
( 1%)
( 9%)
( 10%)
( 0%)
49
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. B Satellite Substance Abuse Programs
CJPP substance abuse treatment programs provide substance abuse services that may include education, out- patient counseling, residential, and in- patient services to offenders.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a SSA include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment ( e. g., intensive supervision program, house arrest with electronic monitoring, residential program, or special probation), those required to attend by the Post- Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole or post- release supervision or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation. Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a SSA.
During the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, there were 1,938 admissions to SSA programs. Of the offenders admitted to local SSA programs during FY 2005- 2006, the state courts referred 584 ( 30%), 1,117 ( 58%) of admissions were referred by probation officers, 152 ( 8%) were from a probation violation court order, and 24 ( 1%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission. There was 1 offender record which had no referral source indicated.
Figure III. B. 1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions 1,117 ( 58%) 24 ( 1%) 584 ( 30%) 152 ( 8%) 05001,0001,500State CourtsDelegated AuthorityProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions 50
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Satellite Substance Abuse programs, 35% were misdemeanants. More than half ( 55%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next largest misdemeanant crime class contributor to CJPP admissions was Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
Table III. B. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
9
59
50
0
118
( 17%)
1
66
166
141
2
375
( 55%)
2
12
44
25
0
81
( 12%)
3
8
17
8
0
33
( 5%)
Other/ Undefined
78
1
0
1
80
( 12%)
Total
173
287
224
3
687
(%)
( 25%)
( 42%)
( 33%)
(< 1%)
The majority ( 65%) of all Satellite Substance Abuse admissions for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were felony offenders. Seventy- three percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were Class H offenses for non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and there were 42 admissions for Class G offenses that included robbery and other property crimes.
Table III. B. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Total
(%)
E
22
32
2
5
1
1
63
( 5%)
F
36
45
20
2
0
0
103
( 8%)
G
39
69
32
13
0
0
153
( 12%)
H
112
208
104
34
6
0
464
( 37%)
I
93
194
122
32
2
1
444
( 35%)
Other
12
4
4
3
1
0
24
( 2%)
314
552
284
89
10
2
1,251
Total (%)
( 25%)
( 44%)
( 23%)
( 7%)
(< 1%)
(< 1%)
51
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
SSA Program Utilization
There were 2,766 offenders that utilized SSA services during fiscal year 2005- 2006. This figure represents 103% of the yearly service goal. Table III. B. 3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each SSA program.
Table III. B. 3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006
Location
Population on July 1, 2005
Entries
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Percent of Offender Goal Utilized
Alamance
31
81
112
100
112%
Alleghany
10
14
24
20
120%
Anson
16
26
42
30
140%
Avery
10
15
25
25
100%
Beaufort
13
72
85
100
85%
Brunswick
20
51
71
60
118%
Cabarrus
33
67
100
125
80%
Caldwell
20
54
74
36
206%
Catawba
29
47
76
90
84%
Columbus
17
48
65
50
130%
Craven
39
84
123
120
103%
Duplin
13
49
62
60
103%
Edgecombe
8
32
40
70
57%
Greene
6
35
41
45
91%
Haywood
18
27
45
45
100%
Henderson
61
51
112
148
76%
Jackson
25
36
61
40
153%
Johnston
10
79
89
80
111%
Jones
4
14
18
25
72%
Lenoir
16
36
52
80
65%
Madison
15
8
23
25
92%
Martin
11
26
37
70
53%
Mitchell
17
36
53
30
177%
Nash
17
49
66
85
78%
Orange- Chatham
14
26
40
82
49%
Pamlico
6
27
33
30
110%
Pender
46
70
116
70
166%
Pitt
81
154
235
120
196%
Polk
6
16
22
30
73%
Richmond
18
45
63
80
79%
Rockingham
11
26
37
40
93%
Rowan
16
64
80
80
100%
Rutherford
29
64
93
60
155%
Sampson
7
68
75
60
125%
Scotland- Hoke
27
81
108
93
116%
Stanly
13
47
60
30
200%
Transylvania
8
13
21
35
60%
Tyrrell
13
16
29
25
116%
Union
3
31
34
40
85%
Washington
12
28
40
35
114%
Watauga
32
31
63
70
90%
Wilson
8
29
37
80
46%
Yadkin
5
41
46
35
131%
Yancey
14
24
38
35
109%
Total
828
1,938
2,766
2,689
103% 52
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Type of Exits
There were 1,901 exits from SSA programs during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. There were 788 ( 41%) offenders exited by successful completion, and 74% of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised.
The second most frequent type of exit from SSA programs was an unsuccessful removal ( 35%).

2005- 2006
Annual Statistical Report
North Carolina
Department of Correction
Mike Easley
Theodis Beck
Governor
Secretary of Correction
Table of Contents
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction……………… 5
Office of Research and Planning............................................................................ 6
I. Division of Prisons............................................................................................. 7
Costs of Incarceration for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................ 7
I. A. Prison Admissions........................................................................................................... 9
Prison Admission Trend..................................................................................................... 9
Type of Admissions............................................................................................................ 9
Admissions by Sentencing Grids...................................................................................... 10
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions.................................................................. 11
I. B. Prison Population.......................................................................................................... 14
Prison Population Trend................................................................................................... 14
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids............................................................................ 14
Inmate Activities............................................................................................................... 17
Programs....................................................................................................................... ... 18
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions........................................................................................ 19
Escapes and Captures........................................................................................................ 20
I. C. Prison Releases............................................................................................................. 23
Prison Release Trend........................................................................................................ 23
Type of Release................................................................................................................. 23
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year.................................... 24
I. D. Prison Population Projections....................................................................................... 26
II. Division of Community Corrections............................................................... 27
Cost of Sanctions.............................................................................................................. 28
II. A. Probation...................................................................................................................... 29
Probation Entry Trend....................................................................................................... 29
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Probation Entries.................................................................... 29
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids....................................................................... 30
Type of Probation Exits.................................................................................................... 31
II. B. Post- Release Supervision............................................................................................. 33
Post- Release Entry Trend................................................................................................. 33
Post- Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids................................................ 33
Type of Post- Release Exits............................................................................................... 34
II. C. Parole......................................................................................................................... .. 35
Parole Entry Trend............................................................................................................ 35
Crime Type of Parole Population..................................................................................... 35
Type of Parole Exits.......................................................................................................... 36
II. D. Community Corrections Demographics....................................................................... 37
II. E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders........................................................ 38
II. G. Supervised Population Projections............................................................................... 43
i
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program............................................................ 45
III. A Day Reporting Centers................................................................................................. 46
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 46
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 46
DRC Program Utilization................................................................................................. 47
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 48
III. B Satellite Substance Abuse Programs............................................................................ 50
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 50
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 51
SSA Program Utilization.................................................................................................. 52
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 53
III. C Resource Centers.......................................................................................................... 55
Type of Admissions.......................................................................................................... 55
Admissions by Sentencing Grid....................................................................................... 55
RC Program Utilization.................................................................................................... 56
Type of Exits..................................................................................................................... 57
IV. Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs..................... 60
IV. A. Community- Based Substance Abuse Treatment: DART Cherry.............................. 62
Enrollment in DART- Cherry............................................................................................ 62
Exits from DART- Cherry................................................................................................. 63
IV. B. Prison- Based DART................................................................................................... 65
IV. C. DART- 24 Education.................................................................................................. 66
IV. D. Intermediate DART Programs.................................................................................... 68
IV. E. Long- Term Residential Substance Abuse Treatment.................................................. 71
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs.......................................................... 71
Private Treatment Centers................................................................................................. 72
IV. F. DART Aftercare.......................................................................................................... 75
V. Appendices..................................................................................................... 76
Appendix A. Department of Correction Populations by County of Conviction.................. 76
Appendix B. Listing of Division of Prisons Facilities......................................................... 83
Appendix C. Listing of the Division of Community Corrections Regional Offices............ 87
ii
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Authorized budget and actual expenditures..................................................................... 5
Table I. 1: Daily cost per inmate for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006: state prisons.................................. 7
Table I. 2: Daily cost per inmate: private prisons.......................................................................... 8
Figure I. A. 1: Total admissions by crime class............................................................................... 9
Figure I. A. 2: Prison Admissions.................................................................................................... 9
Table I. A. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanor Prison Admissions..................................................................................................................... .............. 10
Table I. A. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Admissions11
Figure I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions........................................................ 12
Table I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions by Felon/ Misdemeanant Status...... 12
Table I. A. 4: Demographics of Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006............................... 13
Figure I. B. 1: Prison population by crime class............................................................................ 14
Table I. B. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanant Prison Population..................................................................................................................... ............... 15
Table I. B. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Population. 15
Figure I. B. 2: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year................................ 16
Table I. B. 3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2006................................................ 17
Table I. B. 4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category......................................................... 17
Table I. B. 5: Inmate Program Assignments.................................................................................. 19
Table I. B. 6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2005- 2006....................................................... 21
Table I. B. 7: Demographics of Prison Population on June 30, 2006............................................ 22
Figure I. C. 1: Prison Releases....................................................................................................... 23
Figure I. C. 2: Type of Releases.................................................................................................... 23
Table I. D. 1: Prison Population Projections.................................................................................. 26
Table II. 1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006............................................................ 28
Figure II. A. 1: Probation entries by crime class........................................................................... 29
Figure II. A. 2: Probation entries by crime type............................................................................ 30
Table II. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2006........ 30
Table II. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2006............. 31
Figure II. A. 3: Probation Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year...................................................... 32
Figure II. B. 1: Post- release entries by fiscal year......................................................................... 33
Table II. B. 1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post- Release Population on June 30, 2006........ 34
Figure II. B. 2: Post- Release Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year................................................. 34
Figure II. C. 1: Parole entries FY 1995- 1996 through 2005- 2006................................................. 35
Figure II. C. 2: Crime types of parole population on June 30, 2006............................................. 36
Figure II. C. 3: Parole Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year............................................................ 36
Table II. D. 1: Demographics of Community Corrections Supervision Admissions.................... 37
Table II. D. 2: Demographics of Community Corrections Supervision Population...................... 37
Table II. E. 1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................... 38
Table II. G. 1: Total Supervision Projections ( Absconders Excluded) for June 30th of Each Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ................... 43
Figure III. A. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 46
Table III. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 47
iii
Table III. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 47
Table III. A. 3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006.................................................... 48
Figure III. A. 2: DRC Type of Exits.............................................................................................. 49
Table III. A. 4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............ 49
Figure III. B. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 50
Table III. B. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 51
Table III. B. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 51
Table III. B. 3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006..................................................... 52
Figure III. B2: SSA Program Type of Exits................................................................................. 53
Table III. B. 4: Demographics of SSA Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............. 54
Figure III. C. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions................................................................ 55
Table III. C. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to RC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... 56
Table III. C. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to RC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year........................................................................................................................... ........ 56
Table III. C. 3: RC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006....................................................... 57
Figure III. C2: RC Program Type of Exits................................................................................... 58
Table III. C. 4: Demographics of RC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006............... 59
Table IV. A. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment for DART Cherry............................................................ 62
Figure IV. A. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from the 28- Day DART Cherry Program................................ 63
Figure IV. A. 2: 2005- 2006 Exits from the 90- Day DART Cherry Program................................ 63
Table IV. A. 2: Demographics of DART Cherry Entries.............................................................. 64
Table IV. B. 1: 2005- 2006 Referrals to DACDP Programs by Prison Diagnostic Center............ 65
Table IV. C. 1: 2005- 2006 Annual Enrollments in DART- 24...................................................... 66
Figure IV. C. 1: 2005- 2006 DART- 24 Exits................................................................................. 67
Table IV. C. 2: Demographics of DART 24 Enrollments............................................................. 67
Table IV. D. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Intermediate DART Programs.................................... 68
Figure IV. D. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from Intermediate DART Programs........................................ 69
Table IV. D. 2: Demographics of DART Intensive Residential Treatment Entries...................... 70
Table IV. E. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in RSAT- Based Long- Term Treatment Programs........... 71
Figure IV. E. 1: 2005- 2006 Exits from RSAT- based Long- Term Treatment Programs............... 72
Table IV. E. 2: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Private Treatment Facilities......................................... 73
Figure IV. E. 2: 2005- 2006 Exits from Private Treatment............................................................ 73
Table IV. E. 3: Demographics of RSAT Entries........................................................................... 74
Table IV. E. 4: Private Alcohol/ Drug Treatment Centers Entries................................................. 74
Table IV. F. 1: 2005- 2006 Enrollment in Continuing Care........................................................... 75
Figure V. A. 1: Prison Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006....................... 76
Figure V. A. 2: Community Corrections Entries by County of Conviction: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006........................................................................................................................... ................... 77
Figure V. A. 3: Prison Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2006............................. 78
Figure V. A. 4: Community Corrections Population by County of Conviction: June 30th, 2006.79
Table V. A. 1: Populations by County of Conviction.................................................................... 80
iv
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Overview of the North Carolina Department of Correction
The North Carolina Department of Correction, one of the largest agencies in State government, is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult offenders sentenced to community/ intermediate punishments or prison. The Department is comprised of three operational divisions that manage offenders directly, as well as numerous administrative support sections. The major Divisions include the Division of Prisons, the Division of Community Corrections, and the Division of Alcoholism and Chemical Dependency Programs.
In 1998, the Department developed a long- range strategic plan, which is based on the following vision statement and strategic issues:
Vision Statement
We, the employees of the Department of Correction, envision an organization respected by the citizens of North Carolina for its effectiveness in responding to the problem of crime in our society and working collaboratively with others to prevent crime through community involvement. We see an organization providing public safety, opportunities for offenders to become productive citizens, and growth and development for employees. We see ourselves contributing to the creation of a society of law- abiding, responsible citizens.
Strategic Issues
• Lead proactively regarding corrections issues.
• Develop and train employees for personal and professional growth.
• Deliver effective services and programs using research and advanced technology.
• Emphasize cost efficient management of resources and accountability for high quality results.
There are over 19,300 employees in the Department of Correction, primarily working directly with offenders in the community or in prisons. The Department is funded through legislative appropriations and receipts ( e. g., Corrections Enterprises). The total authorized budget and actual expenditures for the Department of Correction over the past five fiscal years are shown in the table below.
Table 1: Authorized budget and actual expenditures
Fiscal Year
North Carolina Department of Correction Authorized Budget
Actual Expenditures
Percent Change in Authorized Budget over Previous Year
2005- 2006
$ 1,121,569,235
$ 1,119,765,756
7.90%
2004- 2005
$ 1,039,461,373
$ 1,038,323,440
4.70%
2003- 2004
$ 992,786,962
$ 978,694,164
9.56%
2002- 2003
$ 906,148,525
$ 885,875,791
- 5.62%
2001- 2002
$ 960,071,979
$ 914,843,399
- 0.08%
5
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Office of Research and Planning
Supporting Successful Decisions
The Office of Research and Planning is part of the Secretary’s Office and provides support services within the Department of Correction. The mission of the Office of Research and Planning is to assist the department and staff to make informed decisions that will result in successful outcomes. Staff includes research and evaluation analysts, applications programmers, correctional planners, and statisticians.
The Research section of the Office coordinates a variety of internal and external evaluation projects. Research assists staff to evaluate effectiveness, modify policies and programs, and report outcomes to policy makers. Research activities include the following:
• Obtain and organize topical information on research topics.
• Prepare statistical and topical reports.
• Conduct evaluations.
• Provide data and methodology review for evaluations.
• Approve human subject research involving staff and offenders under the supervision of the Department of Correction.
• Provide technical assistance on conducting evaluations.
The Planning/ Policy Analysis section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance in strategic planning and policy analysis to the sections and divisions in the Department. Planning and policy analysis activities include the following:
• Develop a structure and process for planning.
• Conduct trend analyses and organizational assessments.
• Organize and facilitate meetings of work groups engaged in planning and policy analysis.
• Research, gather and organize information for policy and programming decisions.
• Consult on methods to implement and monitor plans and policies.
• Analyze information on science- based program interventions and best practices.
The Decision Support section of the Office provides aggregate statistical information and software applications to assist Department managers and staff to make decisions. Decision Support activities include the following:
• Provide answers to statistical questions about offenders.
• Develop computer programs to extract aggregate offender data.
• Analyze and interpret statistical information.
• Develop software applications to provide information about offenders.
• Provide internet- based decision support training.
• Prepare population forecasts and utilize simulation models.
The Program Development section of the Office provides consultation and technical assistance to departmental managers and staff to implement new, effective programs that cross division lines. Program development activities include the following:
• Identify sources of information and contacts on effective prison, probation and substance abuse programs.
• Coordinate and facilitate work groups to develop program proposals.
• Assimilate materials to market new program concepts with internal and external groups.
• Prepare implementation plans for new probation, prison and/ or substance abuse programs.
• Develop methods for assessing the effectiveness of new programs. 6
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. Division of Prisons
The Division of Prisons is responsible for the custody, supervision, and rehabilitation of over 37,000 inmates. As of June 30, 2006, there were 78 state prisons in North Carolina and three private non- profit contracted facilities. In order to protect the community, staff, and inmates, the Division of Prisons classifies prisons, inmates, and prison beds according to prison security designation, inmate custody classification, and bed security levels, respectively.
The Secretary of the Department of Correction assigns the security designation of the prison based on the physical design and structure of the prison, the type of cells in the prison ( e. g. single cells, dormitories), and the intensity and type of staff supervision ( e. g. armed, unarmed). Currently, there are 13 close, 26 medium, and 39 minimum security state prisons, and the minimum security prisons are contracted facilities.
The Division receives felons and misdemeanants with prison sentences ranging from a minimum of 90 days for certain misdemeanors to life imprisonment or death for crimes such as rape or murder. Prison staff classify the individual inmate’s custody by analyzing factors such as current crime, length of sentence, past criminal history, and past prison behavior record. At the end of the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, 47 percent of inmates in the prison population were assigned to medium custody, 35 percent to minimum and 18 percent to close custody.
The Division provides rehabilitative activities for inmates. These activities include jobs, educational programs, vocational programs, cognitive behavioral interventions, substance abuse interventions, mental health interventions, and religious services.
Costs of Incarceration for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
The Department calculates an average cost of incarcerating minimum, medium, and close custody inmates annually. The figures include the direct costs of inmate supervision/ custody and programs/ activities, and indirect administrative costs for Department support of prisons. The daily cost of incarcerating one inmate ranged from $ 54.81 in minimum custody to $ 79.72 in close custody, with an average of $ 66.87 in 2005- 2006 compared to an average of $ 63.58 in the 2004- 2005 fiscal year.
Table I. 1: Daily cost per inmate for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006: state prisons
Inmate Custody Level
Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Minimum
12,754
$ 54.81
Medium
17,825
$ 70.83
Close
6,544
$ 79.72
Average
37,131
$ 66.87
The Department had contracts with two private non- profit minimum security substance abuse treatment prisons and one private non- profit minimum security community re- entry prison during the year. Table I. 2 indicates the contracted operating cost per day per inmate for each of these facilities for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year.
7
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. 2: Daily cost per inmate: private prisons
Private Facility
2005- 2006 Average Daily Population
Daily Cost Per Inmate
Mary Frances Center
97
$ 84.57
Evergreen Rehab Center
90
$ 66.80
ECO Halfway House
20
$ 46.23 8
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. A. Prison Admissions
Prison Admission Trend
During fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 27,257 admissions to North Carolina prisons. Figure I. A. 1 shows the total number of admissions beginning in fiscal year 1995- 1996, by felon or misdemeanant status.
Figure I. A. 1: Total admissions by crime class.
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 200627,2572004- 200526,0702003- 200425,3262002- 200323,5932001- 200223,7602000- 200123,2991999- 200025,2731998- 199925,1561997- 199825,4081996- 199724,4491995- 199623,18105,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal YearEntriesTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Although admissions decreased in the early part of the decade, there has been a return to the 1999- 2000 admissions level in recent years. Part of the initial increase and then decrease is due to a reorganization of programs within the Department of Correction. For several years, the IMPACT boot camp program was part of the Division of Prisons, but it was administratively transferred in 1999 when the statute was rewritten to define it as an Intermediate Punishment, and entries no longer counted as a prison admission. A 5% increase in admissions occurred between fiscal years 2004- 2005 and 2005- 2006.
Type of Admissions
There are four types of admissions to prison: new admissions, probation revocations, parole/ post- release supervision revocations, and safekeepers/ pre- sentence diagnostic inmates. Revocations are violations of the conditions of probation, parole, or post- release supervision, including committing new crimes. New admissions result from a court- imposed active sentence to prison. Safekeepers are un- sentenced defendants admitted to prison when detention in the local jail poses a danger to the inmate or when medical care is needed. Pre- sentence diagnostic admissions ( PSD) are inmates who have been convicted, but the judge requests an assessment before sentencing.
More than half ( 53%) the prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were probation revocations1 and 42% were from new admissions. Safekeepers and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions accounted for 5% of admissions. Figure I. A. 2 shows prison admissions by type.
1 Fifty- three percent of prison admissions due to revocation is not the same as the probation revocation rate. These prison admissions comprise a subset of offenders who had a probation revocation for technical violations or new crimes. It is computed as a percentage of offenders entering prison, whereas the probation revocation rate is the percentage of offenders who exited community supervision.
9
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure I. A. 2: Prison Admissions 14,37125211,4691,16502,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000New AdmissionsProbation RevocationParole/ Post- ReleaseRevocationSafekeep/ PSDAdmission TypeEntries
Admissions by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act became effective in 1994. This sentencing policy prescribes sentencing options for judges based on the severity of the crime and the prior record of the offender. Judges are provided with specific sentencing options for the type and length of sentence that may be imposed. DWI admissions and pre- structured sentencing inmates are sentenced under different laws. Tables I. A. 1 and I. A. 2 illustrate the distribution of fiscal year 2005- 2006 prison admissions for misdemeanants and felons.
Table I. A. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanor Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
103
397
1,340
0
1,840
( 21%)
1
372
657
3,127
0
4,156
( 48%)
2
20
103
125
0
248
( 3%)
3
2
1
8
0
11
(< 1%)
DWI
1
1
0
2,439
2,441
( 28%)
Total
498
1,159
4,600
2,439
8,696
(%)
( 6%)
( 13%)
( 53%)
( 28%)
Convictions for Class 1 misdemeanors represent the largest group of misdemeanor prison admissions. Offenses in Class 1 included traffic violations ( 28%), larceny ( 28%), and non- trafficking drug offenses ( 19%). Convictions for Driving While Impaired ( DWI) were the next largest contributors to misdemeanor admissions. These convictions were not part of Structured Sentencing but rather the Safe Roads Act of 1983. The third most numerous crime class for misdemeanor admissions to prison were Class A1. Almost all of the Class A1 offenses were assaults ( 90%). The remainder of the misdemeanor offenses resulting in an admission to prison included worthless checks, assaults, property and public order offenses.
10
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Eighty- one percent of all felony prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were for Class F through Class I offenses. Class H offenses represented the largest group of felons admitted to prison with 6,634 or 38% of all admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006. The majority of Class H admissions were for breaking and entering ( 28%), followed by larceny ( 22%), and drug crimes ( non- trafficking) ( 20%). Class I offenses made up the next largest group, sixty- eight percent of which were for non- trafficking drug offenses but also included forgery ( 13%) and breaking and entering ( 11%). Class G offenses included drug ( non- trafficking) offenses ( 36%), as well as robbery ( 20%), public order crimes ( 16%) and drugs trafficking ( 16%). Sexual offenses ( 31%), assaults ( 17%) public order ( 17%), and drugs trafficking crimes ( 13%) were the most frequent Class F offenses.
Table I. A. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Admissions
Prior Record Level
ndefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
on- tructured
Total
(%)
A
62
8
7
5
0
2
5
< 1%)
B1
70
30
14
14
5
2
35
< 1%)
B2
113
76
49
31
4
2
76
2%)
C
149
185
194
254
89
72
57
6%)
D
271
275
120
84
24
11
05
5%)
E
313
370
156
96
25
19
79
6%)
F
448
448
322
175
43
49
,494
9%)
G
587
781
630
464
114
63
,640
15%)
H
1,020
2,122
1,569
1,225
381
,634
38%)
I
518
1,173
719
595
166
,353
19%)
Other
1
0
0
0
0
0
< 1%)
3,552
5,468
3,780
2,943
851
Total (%)
( 20%)
( 31%)
( 22%)
( 17%)
( 5%)
4%)
1%)
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
The remaining felony classes contain the most serious offenses. Almost all Class A offenses were first degree murder and carry a punishment of death or life without parole ( 96%). All Class B1 offenses were sexual assaults. Most B2 admissions were for second degree murder ( 75%) but there were some sexual assaults ( 16%) and first degree murders ( 9%) in this class. In Class C, 66% of admissions were habitual felons, 14% of admissions were for sexual assault, and 10% of admissions were for assault. Sixty- three percent of Class D admissions were for robbery. Finally, Class E admissions were mostly for crimes against a person including assaults ( 57%), kidnapping and abduction ( 15%), and robbery ( 15%).
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions
Overall, 67% of the 2005- 2006 prison admissions were for felony crime convictions. Crimes resulting in a prison sentence are grouped in one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person.
11
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The most frequent crime type for prison admissions was public order. This crime type accounted for 47% of all admissions during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. This crime type included drugs offenses – trafficking and non- trafficking ( 6,231), Driving While Impaired ( 2,583), traffic violations ( 1,732), and habitual felons ( 628). Among public order crime admissions, 62% were felons.
Property crimes accounted for 30% of all prison admissions. The most frequent offenses in this category were larceny ( 2,686) and breaking/ entering ( 2,482). Other offenses included fraud ( 1,128), forgery ( 539) and burglary ( 242). The majority of admissions ( 75%) for property crimes were felons. Figure I. A. 3 shows the number of admissions by crime type for fiscal year 2005- 2006 prison admissions.
Figure I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions 7,693 ( 30%) 12,182 ( 47%) 6,176 ( 24%) 27 (< 1%) 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesNot ReportedCrime TypeEntries
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
There were 6,176 admissions for crimes against a person, which accounted for 24% of all prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006. Forty- eight percent of these crimes were assaults ( 2,994). This category also included robberies ( 1,307), sexual offenses ( 962) and homicides ( 491). As with property and public order crimes, the majority ( 66%) of crimes against a person were felon admissions. Table I. A. 3 shows 2005- 2006 admissions by crime type and felon or misdemeanant status.
Table I. A. 3: Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Prison Admissions by Felon/ Misdemeanant Status
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
Total
(%)
Crimes Against a Person
4,091
2,085
0
6,176
( 24%)
Property Crimes
5,737
1,956
0
7,693
( 29%)
Public Order Crimes
7,527
4,655
0
12,182
( 47%)
Not Reported
0
0
39
39
(< 1%)
Total (%)
17,355
( 67%)
8,696
( 33%)
39
(< 1%)
26,090
Note: This total does not include 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions. 12
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. A. 4: Demographics of Prison Admissions: Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
264
601
47
27
40
4
983
( 4%)
19- 21
918
1,495
136
129
97
10
2,785
( 10%)
22- 25
1,402
2,108
309
247
191
15
4,272
( 16%)
26- 30
1,473
2,262
320
348
244
25
4,672
( 17%)
31- 35
1,438
1,801
237
362
235
27
4,100
( 15%)
36- 40
1,243
1,660
154
350
247
23
3,677
( 13%)
41- 45
1,134
1,567
91
279
235
16
3,322
( 12%)
46- 50
745
1,006
49
140
108
4
2,052
( 8%)
51- 55
307
466
30
41
52
0
896
( 3%)
56- 60
127
153
7
11
16
0
314
( 1%)
61- 65
56
42
2
5
2
0
107
(< 1%)
66- 70
25
22
1
5
0
0
53
(< 1%)
71+
13
10
1
0
0
0
24
(< 1%)
Total
9,145
13,193
1,384
1,944
1,467
124
27,257
(%)
( 34%)
( 48%)
( 5%)
( 7%)
( 5%)
( 0%)
Note: This total includes 1,167 safekeeper and pre- sentence diagnostic admissions.
13
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. B. Prison Population
Prison Population Trend
On June 30, 2006, there were 37,467 offenders in the prison system, representing approximately a 2% increase from the previous fiscal year. Figure I. B. 1 shows the prison year end population from fiscal year 1995- 1996 by felon- misdemeanant status. The prison population has continued to grow over the past few years after a slight decrease from 1998 through 2000. There were 218 safekeepers in the prison population on June 30, 2006.
Figure I. B. 1: Prison population by crime class.
DatePopulation06/ 30/ 200637,46706/ 30/ 200536,66306/ 30/ 200435,20506/ 30/ 200333,58306/ 30/ 200233,02106/ 30/ 200131,89906/ 30/ 200031,58106/ 30/ 199931,91406/ 30/ 199832,61206/ 30/ 199732,52906/ 30/ 199630,87605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndingPopulationTotalFelonMisdemeanant
Prison Population by Sentencing Grids
Although 33% of prison admissions in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were misdemeanants, this group comprised only 6% of the population on June 30, 2006. This is largely due to shorter sentence lengths for misdemeanor offenses. Forty- four percent of misdemeanant inmates in the prison population at the end of the fiscal year were incarcerated for Class 1 offenses. Three- quarters of these convictions were for traffic violations ( 31%), larceny ( 27%) or drugs ( non- trafficking) charges ( 17%). Most had a Prior Record Level of II or III. Thirty percent of misdemeanants in the population were convicted for DWI and another 24% were incarcerated for a Class A1 offense. The majority of these convictions were for assaults ( 91%). Table I. B. 1 shows the crime class and prior record level for misdemeanants in prison at the end of Fiscal Year 2005- 2006.
14
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 1: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Misdemeanant Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total (%)
A1
20
68
450
0
538
( 24%)
1
44
95
826
0
965
( 44%)
2
4
10
16
0
30
( 1%)
3
0
0
4
0
4
(< 1%)
DWI
1
1
0
663
665
( 30%)
Other/ Undefined
0
0
0
8
8
(< 1%)
Total
69
174
1,296
671
2,210
(%)
( 3%)
( 8%)
( 59%)
( 30%)
Note: This total does not include the 17 offenders committed as safekeepers.
The profile of the felon inmate population was very different from the profile of felon admissions to prison. Class A- E offenses represented 19% of prison admissions during 2005- 2006 but accounted for 57% of the prison population on June 30, 2006. Felons have long sentences, so they remain in the population over an extended period of time and account for the projected growth in the prison population in the next few years ( Page 25 has information on prison projections). For example, consider the difference in the admissions for Class A offenders and the number in the population. There were 85 Class A admissions last fiscal year and on June 30, 2006 there were 1,458 in the population. The sentence for these offenders is either life in prison or death. Table I. B. 2 shows crime class and prior record level for inmates in prison at the end of the fiscal year.
Table I. B. 2: Structured Sentencing and Non- Structured Sentencing Felony Prison Population
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A
640
61
60
27
7
5
658
1,458
( 4%)
B1
473
351
182
128
22
20
0
1,176
( 3%)
B2
901
906
448
258
60
38
2
2,613
( 7%)
C
670
1,116
1,531
2,009
672
550
1,224
7,772
( 22%)
D
1,202
1,278
974
695
179
134
615
5,077
( 15%)
E
465
662
336
309
84
72
20
1,948
( 6%)
F
879
654
553
371
96
122
95
2,770
( 8%)
G
941
896
808
715
188
166
16
3,730
( 11%)
H
544
1,293
1,249
1,234
543
497
151
5,511
( 16%)
I
228
495
333
314
114
132
7
1,623
( 5%)
Other
13
2
0
0
0
1
1,337
1,353
( 4%)
6,956
7,714
6,474
6,060
1,965
1,737
4,125
35,031
Total (%)
( 20%)
( 22%)
( 18%)
( 17%)
( 6%)
( 5%)
( 12%)
Note: This total does not include 201 offenders committed as safekeepers.
15
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure I. B. 2 illustrates the crime type of the prison population at the end of the fiscal year for 1996 through 2006. There have been changes in the composition of the prison population during this time period, and these changes may continue over time. The proportion of property offenses in the prison population has decreased over the past ten years, from 29% of the population in 1996 to almost 17% in 2006. There has been an increase in the proportion of both public order crimes and crimes against a person in the prison population. Public order offenses comprised 24% of the population in 1996 and increased to 34% in 2006. In 1996, 47% of the population was incarcerated for crimes against a person and in 2006 it was 49%.
Figure I. B. 2: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30th of Each Year PersonPropertyPublic Order05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndPrison Population
Note: These totals do not include offenders committed as safekeepers.
Crimes against a person comprised the largest proportion of convictions for inmates in the prison population on June 30, 2006. The most frequent of these crimes were sexual offenses ( 25%), followed by robbery ( 24%) and second degree murder ( 17%). Approximately 5% of the prison population on June 30, 2006 was incarcerated for first degree murder. Inmates committed for public order crimes were the second most numerous. The most frequent of these crimes included drug crimes ( 44%) and habitual felon convictions ( 36%). Seven percent of inmates in prison for public order crimes were convicted for DWI. Inmates committed for property crimes represented the smallest proportion. The most frequent crimes in this category included breaking and entering ( 35%) and larceny ( 22%). Table I. B. 3 shows the crime type of inmates in prison at fiscal year end by felon or misdemeanant status.
16
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 3: Crime Type of Prison Population on June 30, 2006
Crime Type
Felon
Misdemeanant
Undefined
otal
(%)
Crimes Against a Person
95
8,351
49%)
Property Crimes
5,734
33
,167
17%)
Public Order Crimes
,182
2,711
34%)
Not Reported
1
19
< 1%)
Total (%)
5,020
( 94%)
,210
( 6%)
19
(< 1%)
Inmate Activities
The Division of Prisons coordinates a wide range of inmate work, educational, and rehabilitative programs. Inmates are required to either work full- time or participate in a full- time program. Only inmates who pose a security risk, have health problems, or are in the admissions process are exempt from the policy.
Work
In each prison facility, inmates are assigned a variety of jobs. Inmates are paid an incentive wage, which is set by statute for the majority of these duties. Currently the incentive wage ranges from $. 40 to $ 1.00 per day depending on the work assignment. Most inmates who work ( 73%), do so inside prison facilities. Table I. B. 4 shows the average daily assignment by each category of job.
Table I. B. 4: Inmate Work Assignment by Work Category
Inmate Work Assignments
In Prison Facilities
Average Daily Assigned During 2005- 2006
Unit Services
5,431
Food Service
3,384
Correction Enterprises
1,904
Prison Maintenance
1,669
Construction
229
Other Jobs
1,210
Outside Prison Facilities
Road Squads
2,273
Community Work Crews
926
State and Local Government
691
Work Release
1,129
Total
18,847
Unit Services - The largest assignment in prison facilities is Unit Services. Prison inmates in these jobs perform janitorial and general maintenance duties. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
17
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Food Service – Inmates work in the kitchens of all prison facilities preparing and serving food to other inmates. This assignment provides a relevant job skill and is beneficial to the prison system because it reduces the cost of operating the facilities.
Correction Enterprises - Correction Enterprises is a separate division of the Department of Correction, which administers industries at prison sites. Enterprise jobs provide opportunities to put close and medium custody inmates to work inside prisons. Inmates are employed making car license tags, street and highway signs, farming, food processing, printing, sewing, laundering, and manufacturing. These jobs teach workers job skills and a work ethic which will enable them to find employment upon release from prison. These jobs pay up to $ 3 per day based on skills required for the job.
Prison Maintenance - Prison inmates are also involved in groundskeeping, light construction, repair, and maintenance projects at prisons. These jobs include roofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, and other unit improvements.
Construction - In addition to cleaning and maintaining prisons, some inmates are assigned to new prison construction projects. Inmates are generally chosen based on pre- existing skills in the construction industry. Like the other categories of work, this experience gives inmates valuable work experience prior to release and helps to reduce the cost of new prison construction.
Road Squads - Minimum and medium custody inmates work on the state's roads, patching potholes, clearing right- of- ways and picking up litter. Medium custody inmates work under the supervision of armed correctional officers. Minimum custody inmates work under the direction of Department of Transportation employees.
Community Work Crew and State and Local Government Agencies - Minimum or medium custody inmates are assigned to Community Work Crews of ten inmates. One correctional officer supervises them and they perform short- term, labor- intensive projects such as hurricane cleanup, litter cleanup, painting schools and cleaning school buses. State and local government agencies have labor contracts for inmates to work for the agency, often involving janitorial services and groundskeeping.
Work Release - Inmates who have proven themselves trustworthy for limited release from custody are allowed to leave the prison unit for jobs. These inmates are nearing their release date and work for businesses in the community. North Carolina started the first work release program in the country in 1957. Inmates on work release receive prevailing market wages from their employers, but must pay a room- and- board fee to the prison unit. For fiscal year 2005- 2006 inmates paid the Department of Correction over $ 4.4 million in per diem and over $ 1.2 million for transportation and job- related expenses. They also paid child support and restitution totaling $ 1,549,608. During this period inmates paid an additional $ 1,765,114 for spousal support and other family expenses.
Programs
Inmates are recommended for participation in programs based on interests, abilities, needs and whether the time remaining in their sentence allows completion of the program. At large institutions, academic and vocational education programs are offered to inmates on a full- time basis. These programs are offered on a part- time basis at other institutions.
18
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 5: Inmate Program Assignments
Average Daily Assignment for 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Full Time
Part Time
Academic Education
2,002
1,953
Vocational Education
2,050
549
Life Skills Programs
206
4,068
Academic Program - The Division of Prisons works with the Community College System to provide a full range of academic programs in prison. Adult basic education is the primary academic program for inmates. It provides the basic knowledge, skills and attitudes to make adult and youth inmates literate. Educational programs also prepare inmates for meaningful and satisfying roles as working, contributing members of society. One hundred percent of prison facilities offer academic programs for inmates. These programs had an average monthly enrollment that exceeded 9,000 students in 2005. That same year, 1,729 inmates passed the General Education Development ( GED) test and 8,616 earned college certificates, diplomas or degrees. Associate degree programs are offered by the Community College System, and bachelor degree programs are offered at two prison sites through Shaw University, a private university based in Raleigh, NC. In addition, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has offered correspondence courses to inmates for more than 30 years. The Department of Correction contracts with the university to provide Independent Studies courses and a limited number of university credit classroom courses.
Vocational Program - A wide variety of vocational programs such as computer literacy, food service training, electrical engineering technology, brick masonry, and job readiness are provided through local community colleges. Participation in these programs can help inmates obtain work with Correction Enterprises or a work release assignment.
Life Skills Programs – Life skills programs include several types of programs such as parenting skills, team activities and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention ( CBI). CBI programs teach offenders new ways of thinking that can lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s awareness of self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social skills to assist the offender with interpersonal problems. These specific types of intervention programs assist offenders in “ restructuring” their thought process and teaches “ cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision- making and problem- solving. These programs are lead by prison or community college staff that have been trained by the Department of Correction.
Inmate Disciplinary Infractions
Inmate conformity to prison rules is necessary for the orderly, safe, and secure operation of correctional facilities. Effective, fair, and consistent disciplinary procedures enhance the orderly operation of the facilities and reinforce appropriate behavior and responsibility. The disciplinary offenses were reclassified in November 2000 into four classes from five, and all substance possession offenses ( e. g., alcohol or drugs) are now Class A. The most serious offenses remain in Class A, and Class D offenses are the least serious infractions. An inmate can be charged with an attempt to commit an offense, and that attempt is in the same class as the infraction itself.
In the 2005- 2006 fiscal year there were 58,764 infractions ( see Table I. B. 6 on page 21), which is a 0.8% increase over the number of infractions during the 2004- 2005 fiscal year ( 58,301 infractions). Almost
19
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
12% ( 6,879) were Class A infractions, of which 46% were for substance possession. The next most frequent Class A offense was assault on staff, with 777 in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. There were 10,893 Class B infractions, including sexual act, damaging property, weapon possession, interfering with staff and lock tampering. The majority of the infractions in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were for Class C offenses, with 34,257 or 58% of the total infractions for the year. Almost half of these, or 16,791 were for disobeying an order. Other Class C infractions include profane language, fighting, unauthorized leave, bartering, threatening staff, and theft of property. Possession of unauthorized items ( including clothing and money), being in an unauthorized location, and gambling are some of the infractions that make up the Class D infractions. Table I. B. 6, on page 21 shows a count of infractions for the fiscal year.
Presumptive punishments are established for each infraction such as: confinement in disciplinary segregation for up to 60 days, demotion in custody, sentence reduction credits, and suspension of privileges, including radio, organized sports, visitation, or other leisure time activities. There is also an administrative fee of ten dollars paid by inmates found guilty of committing an infraction, to offset the costs of staff time.
Escapes and Captures
The primary goal of the Department is to protect the community. However, some inmates escape from prison each year though most are apprehended. In 2005- 2006 there were 50 escapes. Minimum custody inmates are often on work release and participate in other activities in the community. Many escapes are the result of the minimum custody inmate not returning to the prison on time from his/ her job, so a capture is recorded the same day. All inmates who escaped during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were captured by the end of the February, 2007.
20
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 6: Inmate Disciplinary Infractions for 2005- 2006
Infraction
Count
Substance Possession
3,164
Assault Staff ( with Weapon, Throwing Liquids or Sexual Intent)
777
Refuse to Submit to a Drug/ Breath Test
574
Assault Person with Weapon
614
Involvement with Gang or STG
589
Attempt Class A Offense
637
Other
524
Class A Total
6,879
Sexual Act
3,303
Damage State/ Another’s Property
867
Lock Tampering
1,032
Weapon Possession
622
High Risk Act
531
Interfere with Staff
459
Other
4,079
Class B Total
10,893
Disobey Order
16,791
Profane Language
7,071
Unauthorized Leave
2,193
Fighting
2,118
Threaten to Harm/ Injure Staff
1,307
Barter/ Trade or Loan Money
1,067
Misuse or Unauthorized Use of Phone/ Mail
960
Theft of Property
1,078
Other
1,672
Class C Total
34,257
Unauthorized Items ( No threat contraband)
2,464
Unauthorized Location
1,836
Unauthorized Funds
603
Gambling
434
Create Offensive Condition
298
Illegal Clothing
311
Other
789
Class D Total
6,735
Total Infractions
58,764
21
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table I. B. 7: Demographics of Prison Population on June 30, 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
105
340
26
7
15
3
496
( 1%)
19- 21
626
1,386
163
61
64
4
2,304
( 6%)
22- 25
1,315
2,773
411
153
129
11
4,792
( 13%)
26- 30
1,753
3,826
604
249
189
26
6,647
( 18%)
31- 35
1,770
3,421
479
266
164
25
6,125
( 16%)
36- 40
1,782
2,903
292
262
205
17
5,461
( 15%)
41- 45
1,724
2,729
201
229
190
17
5,090
( 14%)
46- 50
1,187
1,711
142
131
90
11
3,272
( 9%)
51- 55
658
924
64
51
52
1
1,750
( 5%)
56- 60
377
416
28
22
14
0
857
( 2%)
61- 65
202
156
7
18
1
1
385
( 1%)
66- 70
105
50
4
10
1
1
171
(< 1%)
71+
69
41
4
1
2
0
117
(< 1%)
Total
11,673
20,676
2,425
1,460
1,116
117
37,467
(%)
( 31%)
( 55%)
( 6%)
( 4%)
( 3%)
( 0%)
Note: This total does not include 218 offenders committed as safekeepers.
22
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. C. Prison Releases
Prison Release Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 26,457 releases from prisons. This 7% increase in releases from the previous year continues the upward trend started in the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. Figure I. C. 1 shows prison release by year beginning with fiscal year 1995- 1996.
Figure I. C. 1: Prison Releases
Fiscal YearReleases2005- 200626,4572004- 200524,6182003- 200423,7092002- 200323,0342001- 200222,6382000- 200122,8061999- 200025,6141998- 199925,8591997- 199825,3261996- 199722,7891995- 199619,35705,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00019961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Fiscal Year EndingTotal
Type of Release
Releases from prison are affected by sentencing policies. Inmates are usually released from prison due to the expiration of their sentence, released on post- release ( under structured sentencing) or on parole ( sentences prior to Structured Sentencing). The majority ( 81%) of releases from prison in fiscal year 2005- 2006 were due to the expiration of an inmate’s sentence. Table I. C. 2 shows the exit type for inmates released from prison during Fiscal Year 2005- 2006.
Figure I. C. 2: Type of Releases 252 ( 1%) 1,718 ( 7%) 1,914 ( 7%) 21,413 ( 81%) 1,160 ( 4%) 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,000Expiration ofSentenceParolePost- ReleaseReleaseSafekeep/ PSDOtherExit TypeRelease 23
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The number of inmates on post- release supervision continues to increase steadily. In 1998- 1999 there were only 235 releases on post- release, 1,051 in 2000- 2001 and 1,914 in the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. These are releases of inmates incarcerated for Class E and higher offenses under Structured Sentencing. Inmates who exit prison on post- release have a mandatory nine months of supervision upon release.
The releases due to parole have decreased steadily over the past few years, since only non- structured sentence inmates are eligible for parole. In fiscal year 1998- 1999, 21% of prison exits were for parole, 13% in 2000- 2001 and only 6% of prison exits for fiscal year 2005- 2006. This decrease in parole type exits is expected to continue since the proportion of the prison population sentenced prior to Structured Sentencing will continue to decrease. On June 30, 2006, 13% of the prison population was eligible for parole.
Safekeeper and Pre- sentenced diagnostic ( PSD) releases are un- sentenced inmates who are held temporarily in prison. Most prison exits in the category labeled “ Other” were court ordered releases, but also included the death of the inmate, Interstate Compact, and execution. Through the Interstate Compact, inmates are transferred to facilities in other states. There were six executions in 2005- 2006.
Time Served by Inmates Released in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
North Carolina enacted numerous sentencing laws in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that govern when and how inmates are released from prison. In 1994, North Carolina enacted Structured Sentencing guidelines. The purpose of Structured Sentencing is to reserve prison for the most serious and chronic offender, and to incarcerate those offenders for longer periods of time. Less serious and less chronic offenders receive punishments in the community, or shorter prison sentences. Structured Sentencing abolished discretionary parole release and authorized judges to set a minimum and maximum sentence for felons and a flat sentence for misdemeanants, based on the severity of the crime of conviction and the prior record level of the offender. Felony Structured Sentencing inmates must serve the entire minimum sentence and may serve the maximum sentence, an additional 20% above the minimum sentence. For example, an inmate must serve 5 years and may serve up to 6 years unless he/ she earns credits off the maximum sentence for good behavior, working and participating in programs. Therefore, all felony inmates sentenced under Structured Sentencing will serve at least 100% of their minimum sentence.
In FY 2005- 2006, 15,390 Structured Sentencing felons were released from prison. These inmates served, on average, 20.26 months in prison, serving 108% of their minimum sentence. Since Structured Sentencing is relatively new, these releases reflect inmates with relatively short sentences for less serious offenses. The amount of time served increases each year as inmates who receive longer sentences under Structured Sentencing are released. This increase is expected to continue for several years.
Judges order misdemeanants to serve a specific sentence and they can earn 4 days per month off their sentence for good behavior, working, and participating in programs. For example, a misdemeanor inmate who has a sentence of 4 months must serve 3.5 months and may serve up to 4 months. During this period there were 5,857 Structured Sentencing misdemeanants released, having served an average of 3.91 months and 95% of their sentence.
Prior to Structured Sentencing, inmates were sentenced under several different sentencing laws which allowed the Parole Commission to release inmates early from prison to parole. The major determinants of when inmates were released from prison under these parole- eligibility laws depended on the good time and gain time credits the inmate earned. Prior to Structured Sentencing, as soon as the inmate entered prison, he/ she was awarded good time credits which reduced the sentence by 50%, and he/ she could also earn additional gain time credits off of the sentence for positive behaviors.
24
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
In fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 401 non- Structured Sentencing felons released from prison for the first time. Those who were paroled and then returned to prison were excluded from these calculations. Since these inmates represented some very serious offenses, they served an average of 147 months before release. These inmates served, on average, 43% of their court- imposed sentences, due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules. During this period, 2,846 non- Structured Sentencing misdemeanants were released from prison; the majority was serving time for Driving While Impaired ( DWI) convictions that fall under the Safe Roads Act. These inmates served, on average, 6 months and 43% of their court- imposed sentence due to good time, gain time and parole eligibility rules.
25
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
I. D. Prison Population Projections
Table I. D. 1 shows 10- year prison population projections by fiscal year. The prison population projections were completed in two parts. The Sentencing Commission prepared prison population projections for all offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2006 ( new population). The Department of Correction prepared projections for all offenders in prison as of June 30, 2006 ( resident prison population). The final combined projections take into account the decline of the resident prison population ( structured sentencing releases, parole releases, and “ max- outs”) and the buildup of the new inmate population ( new sentences, probation revocations, parole revocations, and post- release supervision revocations). Added to these figures is the estimated number of safekeepers and DWI offenders held in the state prison system.
Table I. D. 1: Prison Population Projections
FISCAL
PROJECTION
YEAR
as of June 30
Estimate Of Expanded Operating Prison Capacity1
Estimate Of Standard Operating Prison Capacity2
2007
38,677
38,505
33,366
2008
39,621
38,505
33,366
2009
40,236
39,853
34,214
2010
41,021
39,853
34,214
2011
41,848
39,853
34,214
2012
42,718
39,853
34,214
2013
43,587
39,853
34,214
2014
44,470
39,853
34,214
2015
45,349
39,853
34,214
2016
46,219
39,853
34,214
Prepared January 2007 by the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission in conjunction with the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning
These projections include both the Expanded Operating Capacity ( EOC) 1 and the Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC) 2 of all prison facilities. Based on these figures, the projected prison population will exceed both standard and expanded operating prison capacity for all ten years of the projection. The projected increase in the prison population can be attributed to changes in two of the primary determining factors of the prison population: 1) an increase in the number of new convictions for new crimes, which directly impacts the number of prison admissions; and 2) Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA) and pre- FSA inmates are serving longer sentences than previously projected.
1 Expanded Operating Capacity ( EOC) is the number of inmates housed in dormitories that operate at varying percentages ( not to exceed 130%) beyond their Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC), plus the number of single cells with one inmate per cell, plus the number of single cells that house two inmates per cell that meet American Correctional Association ( ACA) standards for space per inmate.
2 Standard Operating Capacity ( SOC) is the number of single cells with one inmate per cell plus the number of inmates who can be housed in dormitories by dividing the gross square feet of each dormitory by 50 square feet and rounding to the closest double bunk configuration.
26
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. Division of Community Corrections
The Division of Community Corrections provides supervision of offenders sentenced to probation or released from the Division of Prisons on parole or post- release supervision. Probation/ parole officers supervise offenders in the community by enforcing compliance with the conditions of probation, parole or post- release supervision, and monitoring offender behavior. Officers refer offenders to rehabilitative services and work with other agencies to encourage participation in programs such as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, educational, and vocational training. As of June 30, 2006 there were 116,516 offenders under the supervision of the Division of Community Corrections.
The Structured Sentencing Act ( SSA), enacted in 1994, provides judicial guidelines to sentence offenders to a community punishment, intermediate punishment, or active sentence in prison. The SSA prioritizes prison resources for the most serious and chronic offenders and shifts some less serious, less chronic offenders from prison sentences to intermediate punishments in the community. Intermediate punishments are designed to be very intrusive and intense, restricting the offender’s liberty while they remain in the community; community punishments are not as restrictive. The judge determines whether to order an intermediate or a community punishment based on the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal record. Examples of community punishments are traditional probation, community service, and victim restitution. Examples of intermediate punishments are intensive supervision, day reporting centers, electronic house arrest, and residential treatment facilities.
In the 1990s the Division of Community Corrections developed a case management policy that complies with the intent of the Structured Sentencing Act. Offenders on probation, parole, or post- release supervision are supervised based on the court sentence received, conditions imposed, their behavior, and needs. If an offender initially receives an intermediate punishment in court, or if the Parole/ Post- Release Supervision Commission sets an intermediate sanction as a special condition when the offender is released from prison, then the offender will always be supervised at an intermediate supervision level. An offender who receives a community punishment will be supervised at the community supervision level. A community punishment offender who violates probation may subsequently receive an intermediate punishment in court. After completing the intermediate punishment, the offender may ( by demonstrating compliance) return to a community supervision level.
Intermediate supervision officers are required to verify the residence and employment of offenders and meet with offenders at their residence and/ or in the field both during the day and in the evenings and on weekends, including curfew checks at the residence. In addition, they contact the offender’s family, contact law enforcement, other criminal justice agencies, service agencies involved with the offender, and execute criminal record checks, and monitor court indebtedness on a frequent basis. Community supervision officers have similar requirements, but do not see offenders as often and do not perform curfew checks.
Intermediate and Intensive supervision officers have more work experience than community supervision officers, and they receive specialized training. They are required to conduct the vast majority of offender contacts in the field, away from the relative safety of the office. Intermediate officers have smaller caseload goals ( 60 active cases) than community supervision officers ( 110 active cases). Intensive officers have even lower caseload goals ( 25 active cases). Some districts have special operations officers who supervise specific populations ( e. g., sex offenders, domestic violence offenders). These officers have caseloads of 30.
The Division of Community Corrections also administers the Criminal Justice Partnership Program ( CJPP). The CJPP is a grant program to county government to operate community corrections programs.
27
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
County advisory boards determine the type of community corrections program to operate ( e. g., day
reporting centers, satellite substance abuse programs or resource centers). There are 92 counties involved in the Partnership initiative this fiscal year. These programs provide varying degrees of structure and monitoring to offenders, and a range of rehabilitative services.
Cost of Sanctions
The Department calculates an average cost of sanctions annually. The figures include the direct costs of supervision and indirect administrative costs. The average daily cost of supervising one offender ranges from $ 1.96 on community/ intermediate punishment to $ 14.97 on intensive probation/ parole.
Table II. 1: Cost of Sanctions for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
Division of Community Corrections Programs
Daily Cost Per Offender
Community/ Intermediate Punishment
$ 1.96
Electronic House Arrest
$ 7.71
Intensive Probation/ Parole
$ 14.97
Criminal Justice Partnership Sentenced Offender Programs
$ 13.70
Drug Screening ( per specimen)
$ 3.23
Community Work Service Program
$ 0.69
28
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. A. Probation
Probation Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 63,208 new offender entries to probation, a slight increase from the past year’s entries. Figure II. A. 1 shows probation entries by felon or misdemeanant status.
Figure II. A. 1: Probation entries by crime class
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 200663,2082004- 200562,5562003- 200461,3502002- 200362,2622001- 200262,7462000- 200160,8451999- 200060,1141998- 199960,3781997- 199861,7691996- 199758,4601995- 199651,544010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal YearProbationersTotalFelonMisdemeanant
The vast majority ( 71%) of entries to probation were misdemeanants. Felons represent 28% of the probation entries for fiscal year 2005- 2006. The proportion of felons to misdemeanants has remained very consistent over the past ten years.
Crime Type of 2005- 2006 Probation Entries
The crimes of offenders entering probation supervision are grouped into one of three categories: public order, property, and crimes against a person. The most frequent crime type for probation entries was public order crimes, accounting for 55% of all entries to probation during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. The predominant public order crimes, contributing the majority of entries to probation this fiscal year, were drugs offenses with 14,611 ( 42%), driving while impaired with 9,179 ( 26%) and other traffic violations with 7,321 ( 21%).
Property crimes accounted for 29% of all entries to probation. The most frequent offense in this category was larceny with 7,181 ( 40%) probationers, followed by breaking and entering with 2,925 ( 16%), fraud with 2,867 ( 16%), other property offenses 1,809 ( 10%), worthless checks with 1,318 ( 7%) and forgery with 1,151 ( 6%).
There were 10,004 entries to probation for crimes against a person, contributing 16% of all entries to probation for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. The majority of these crimes were assaults with 7,754 ( 78%) probationers. This category also includes sexual offenses with 895 ( 9%) and robbery with 573 ( 6%).
29
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure II. A. 2: Probation entries by crime type 307 (< 1%) 10,004 ( 16%) 34,845 ( 55%) 18,052 ( 29%) 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesNot ReportedCrime TypeEntries
Probation Population by Sentencing Grids
The Structured Sentencing Act prescribes punishments in the community based on the seriousness of the crime and criminal history. The probation population on June 30, 2006 was 112,630. Sixty- five percent of this population were misdemeanants. Table II. A. 1 shows the distribution of the misdemeanant population by their primary offense sentence.
Table II. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Probation Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
2,937
3,187
2,050
31
8,205
( 11%)
1
13,457
13,940
7,772
127
35,296
( 48%)
2
3,635
3,361
1,294
16
8,306
( 11%)
3
995
883
412
6
2,296
( 3%)
Non- Structured Sentencing Crimes
0
0
0
18,927
18,927
( 26%)
Undefined
0
0
0
5
5
(< 1%)
Total
21,024
21,371
11,528
19,112
73,035
(%)
( 29%)
( 29%)
( 16%)
( 26%)
Almost half ( 48%) of the misdemeanant probation population was convicted of Class 1 offenses. The most frequent crime categories in the Class 1 offenses were traffic violations ( 26%), larceny ( 22%), drug offenses ( 21%), fraud ( 6%) and assault ( 5%). Class A1 offenses contribute 11% to the misdemeanant population, the majority of which were assaults ( 85%). Class 2 contributes the next largest percentage of misdemeanant probationers, with the primary offenses in this class being worthless checks ( 27%), other public order offenses ( 19%), assault ( 17%), and traffic violations ( 16%). The remaining class, Class 3, consists largely of non- trafficking drugs offenses ( 46%), public order offenses ( 19%) and larceny ( 18%) convictions.
30
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
The second largest group of misdemeanors under supervision was probationers with non- Structured Sentencing crimes, which comprised 26% of the population at the end of the fiscal year. These offenders were sentenced for Driving While Impaired under separate legislation, the Safe Roads Act of 1983. Other non- Structured Sentencing offenders included Interstate Compact and offenders supervised under Deferred Prosecution.
Table II. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for the Probation Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
E
859
764
20
12
1
1
36
1,693
( 4%)
F
1,573
1,046
452
34
1
1
83
3,190
( 8%)
G
1,398
1,551
712
364
4
1
53
4,083
( 10%)
H
6,195
5,330
2,157
1,089
230
21
508
15,530
( 40%)
I
4,561
4,726
1,848
715
127
95
326
12,398
( 32%)
Non- Structured Sentencing Crimes
248
23
7
1
1
0
1,593
1,873
( 5%)
Undefined
142
86
14
8
1
1
247
499
( 1%)
14,976
13,526
5,210
2,223
365
120
2,846
39,266
Total (%)
( 38%)
( 34%)
( 13%)
( 6%)
( 1%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
Note: The Undefined category contains offenders that had missing crime information.
The felony sentencing table above describes felons in the probation population at the end of fiscal year 2005- 2006. The felony crime class with the largest number in the probation population is Class H, representing 40% of all felons on probation. The offenses in this crime class included drugs charges ( 25%), fraud ( 23%), breaking and entering ( 19%), and larceny ( 19%). Class I offenses represented 32% of probationers with felony convictions, largely non- trafficking drugs offenses ( 69%) and forgery ( 10%). Classes E, F and G represented the smallest proportion of felons with a structured sentence on probation on June 30, 2006. Though the majority of these crimes were drugs offenses ( 26%), these classes also included more serious crimes such as sexual offenses ( 18%), assault ( 17%), and robbery ( 10%).
Type of Probation Exits
Of the 63,233 probation exits in fiscal year 2005- 2006, 18% were completions. In order to exit probation supervision as a completion the offender must serve the entire term sentenced by the court and meet all conditions of probation.
Revocations represent 34% of all exits from probation ( probation revocation rate). An offender is revoked due to non- compliance with the conditions of probation which includes committing a new crime. Probation may also be revoked for technical violations of probation such as positive drug tests, non- reporting, failing to attend treatment, among others. The exits classified as Elect to Serve ( 3%) are often combined with the revocations for an overall revocation rate, because the offender will elect to serve his or her suspended sentence rather than comply with additional sanctions imposed as a result of the violation process. Both exits result in incarceration.
31
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Early terminations, which accounted for 31% of exits, may be a successful or unsuccessful end of probation supervision. The court may satisfactorily terminate probation for several reasons. These may be cases in which all conditions of probation were met early and the supervision ended. Other possibilities for exits in the early termination category are considered unsuccessful. Examples are, probation cases in which the offender absconded and is not apprehended within three years of the order for arrest date ( case is moved to unsupervised probation with District Attorney approval) or received new criminal charges and probation ended due to incarceration.
Figure II. A. 3: Probation Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year 8,823( 14%) 1,942( 3%) 19,904( 31%) 21,317( 34%) 11,247( 18%) 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000CompletionRevocationEarly TerminationElect to ServeOther Exits
Finally, the “ Other Exits” category includes exits due to the offender’s death, the closure of a case sentenced in another state but supervised in North Carolina through an Interstate Compact Agreement, or other termination not further described.
32
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. B. Post- Release Supervision
Post- Release Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 1,764 entries to post- release supervision. The number of post- release supervision entries has increased steadily since the 1996- 1997 fiscal year due to the Structured Sentencing Act. Figure II. B. 1 illustrates this increase.
Figure II. B. 1: Post- release entries by fiscal year
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 20061,7642004- 20051,6882003- 20041,4282002- 20031,4032001- 20021,1512000- 20011,0411999- 20009371998- 19997271997- 19983941996- 19978302004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,00096- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal Year
Post- release supervision provides oversight during the period of re- entry in the community for serious offenders who have been sentenced and served prison terms. This form of supervision was incorporated into the Structured Sentencing Act for offenders who serve long prison sentences and need control and assistance readjusting to life outside of the correctional institution. All offenders serving a prison sentence for a Class B1 through E felony conviction are supervised for nine months to five years, depending on the offense, after completion of their required prison term.
Post- Release Population by Structured Sentencing Grids
Fiscal year 1996- 1997 was the first year after the adoption of Structured Sentencing that cases were assigned to post- release supervision. The Sentencing Grid in Table II. B. 1 reflects the population on post- release supervision at the end of fiscal year 2005- 2006. The number of offenders in the grid is relatively small due to the long prison sentences for the offenses in these sentencing grid cells.
This is the fifth year offenders convicted of Class B2 offenses have entered post- release. In addition, this is only the third year that Class B1 offenders have been released on post- release as a result of the long sentences for those crimes. The distribution of the offenders on post- release supervision will not adequately reflect the population convicted of these crimes for many years due to the length of the sentences they serve. There were 1,868 inmates on post- release at the end of this fiscal year. This figure reflects a 13.4% increase over the population of 1,647 on June 30, 2005.
More offenders on post- release supervision on June 30, 2006 were convicted of Class E offenses than any other offenses. Within Class E, the majority of the convictions were assaults ( 58%). Other crime categories for Class E offenses on post- release supervision were kidnapping and abduction ( 13%), robbery ( 12%), and sexual assault ( 10%). All inmates released to post- release supervision for conviction of sexual offenses are supervised for five years. Among inmates supervised for Class D offenses, 64%
33
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
had robbery convictions. The other predominant crime categories in Class D were sexual assault ( 15%), manslaughter ( 11%) and burglary ( 7%). The majority of Class C offenders were habitual felons ( 59%), followed by sexual assaults ( 29%) and assaults ( 7%). As a group, offenders on post- release on June 30, 2006 had most recently been incarcerated for robbery ( 24%), assault ( 23%), sex offenses ( 18%) and as habitual felons ( 18%).
Table II. B. 1: Felony Sentencing Table for the Post- Release Population on June 30, 2006
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
B1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
(< 1%)
B2
27
11
2
0
0
0
0
40
( 2%)
C
151
136
147
96
27
3
2
562
( 30%)
D
229
211
98
33
8
0
1
580
( 31%)
E
199
260
110
77
15
7
0
668
( 36%)
Undefined
0
3
2
1
0
0
11
17
(< 1%)
606
622
359
207
50
10
14
1,868
Total (%)
( 32%)
( 33%)
( 19%)
( 11%)
( 3%)
( 1%)
( 1%)
Type of Post- Release Exits
The majority ( 79%) of exits from post- release supervision were completions. When the offender completes this period of supervision, the sentence for which the offender was placed on supervision is terminated. An offender on post- release supervision may be revoked for a technical violation such as positive drug tests, non- reporting, failing to attend treatment, or for additional criminal convictions. There were 266 revocations. Eleven offenders died.
Figure II. B. 2: Post- Release Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year 1,253 ( 79%) 266 ( 17%) 68 ( 4%) 02004006008001,0001,2001,400CompletionRevocationOther Exits 34
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. C. Parole
Parole Entry Trend
During the fiscal year 2005- 2006, there were 1,870 entries to parole supervision. Overall, there has been a steady decline in parole entries over the past nine years. However, this year, there was a 2% increase over last year. Figure II. C. 1 illustrates this trend.
Figure II. C. 1: Parole entries FY 1995- 1996 through 2005- 2006.
Fiscal YearTotal2005- 20061,8702004- 20051,8312003- 20041,8412002- 20032,0972001- 20022,4352000- 20013,1871999- 20004,2981998- 19995,7471997- 19988,2241996- 19979,9561995- 199610,14102,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00095- 9696- 9797- 9898- 9999- 0000- 0101- 0202- 0303- 0404- 0505- 06Fiscal Year
This decline in entries to parole is due to the adoption of Structured Sentencing. The Structured Sentencing Act eliminated parole for offenders sentenced under those laws. The inmates who are eligible for parole were sentenced for convictions under other sentencing laws. Non- Structured Sentencing inmates comprised approximately 13% of the prison population on June 30, 2006. Parole entries decreased for several years, but have recently stabilized. Nearly half the entries to parole are sentenced under DWI laws, with another 16% from Interstate Compact cases.
Crime Type of Parole Population
There were 2,018 offenders on parole supervision on June 30, 2006. Figure II. C. 2 shows the crime types of the parole population. The majority of this population was convicted of crimes against a person ( 41%). The majority of which were homicides – 91 first degree murder, 230 second degree murder and 29 manslaughter. This was followed by robbery ( 252), assault ( 112) and sex offenses ( 89). Public order crimes that this population was convicted of included driving while impaired ( 395) and drugs offenses ( 259). The most frequent property crimes were burglary ( 114), breaking and entering ( 99), larceny ( 56), and fraud ( 23).
35
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure II. C. 2: Crime types of parole population on June 30, 2006 87 ( 4%) 771 ( 38%) 323 ( 16%) 837 ( 41%) 01002003004005006007008009001,000Crimes Against a PersonProperty CrimesPublic Order CrimesOther
Type of Parole Exits
The majority ( 75%) of exits from parole supervision were completions. Revocations decreased 50% during fiscal year 2005- 2006. There were 103 ( 6%) exits from parole supervision due to revocation compared to 205 in the previous year. An offender on parole supervision may be revoked for the same types of technical violation as probation and post- release cases. The “ Other” category includes cases in which there was a closure of a case supervised in North Carolina but sentenced in another state, a successful or unsuccessful termination, or the offender died – 19 offenders on parole died last year.
Figure II. C. 3: Parole Exits in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
319 ( 19%) 103 ( 6%) 1,298 ( 75%) 02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,600CompletionRevocationOther Exits
36
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. D. Community Corrections Demographics
Table II. D. 1: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Admissions
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
2,120
2,758
405
595
645
65
6,588
( 10%)
19- 21
2,919
2,858
615
910
753
68
8,123
( 12%)
22- 25
3,294
3,541
1,077
1,127
1,029
110
10,178
( 15%)
26- 30
3,222
3,671
1,067
1,194
1,064
108
10,326
( 15%)
31- 35
2,862
2,849
766
1,152
858
87
8,574
( 13%)
36- 40
2,588
2,589
466
1,020
768
59
7,490
( 11%)
41- 45
2,452
2,480
291
995
710
45
6,973
( 10%)
46- 50
1,622
1,688
165
553
452
35
4,515
( 7%)
51- 55
804
996
67
229
200
11
2,307
( 3%)
56- 60
424
439
25
100
67
4
1,059
( 2%)
61- 65
155
178
14
47
15
4
413
(< 1%)
66- 70
84
83
2
14
4
0
187
(< 1%)
71+
53
49
1
5
1
0
109
(< 1%)
22,599
24,179
4,961
7,941
6,566
596
66,842
Total (%)
( 34%)
( 36%)
( 7%)
( 12%)
( 10%)
( 1%)
Table II. D. 2: Demographics of All Community Corrections Supervision Population
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
1,717
2,328
332
441
547
50
5,415
( 5%)
19- 21
4,159
4,277
847
1,135
1,042
96
11,556
( 10%)
22- 25
5,909
6,359
1,918
1,796
1,837
187
18,006
( 15%)
26- 30
6,256
7,237
2,454
2,201
2,258
188
20,594
( 18%)
31- 35
5,262
5,541
1,684
2,123
1,884
173
16,667
( 14%)
36- 40
4,781
4,797
1,007
1,932
1,560
128
14,205
( 12%)
41- 45
4,580
4,364
605
1,897
1,464
95
13,005
( 11%)
46- 50
3,104
3,098
374
1,144
910
64
8,694
( 7%)
51- 55
1,620
1,884
150
480
446
26
4,606
( 4%)
56- 60
862
919
50
213
160
10
2,214
( 2%)
61- 65
390
347
27
90
50
6
910
(< 1%)
66- 70
192
155
11
27
14
0
399
(< 1%)
71+
134
87
3
14
7
0
245
(< 1%)
38,966
41,393
9,462
13,493
12,179
1,023
116,516
Total (%)
( 33%)
( 36%)
( 8%)
( 12%)
( 10%)
( 1%)
37
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. E. Intermediate Sanctions for Supervised Offenders
Intermediate sanctions are those which are more severe and restrictive than traditional probation but less severe and restrictive than prison. Intermediate sanctions are also more costly than traditional probation but less costly than incarceration in prison. They provide graduated punishment or control in the community by increasing or decreasing supervision based on the offender’s behavior. Confinement in prison or jail always remains an option for noncompliance with the court or Parole/ PRS Commission’s conditions. The six intermediate sanctions in North Carolina are listed in the table below.
Table II. E. 1: Intermediate Sanction Utilization in the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Began in
Population
Sanction
Fiscal Year 2005- 2006
as of June 30, 2006
Intensive Supervision
13,252
6,492
Electronic House Arrest
2,951
921
Day Reporting Centers
1,550
773
Continuous or Non- continuous Split Sentence/ Special Probation
4,633
1,379
Residential Community Correction Facility
Drug Treatment Court
1,028
476
465
443
Intensive Supervision: The Division continued operation of the Intensive Sanction during the year. While Surveillance Officers ( SOs) and Intensive officers ( ICOs) no longer work together as a team, they are both involved, at least to some degree with supervising cases which require intensive supervision. The SO provides assistance in several areas now, one of which is to help with intensive supervision by making curfew checks. The ICO handles intensive cases for supervision in addition to handling other types of cases.
Electronic House Arrest ( EHA): The Division continued its operation of the EHA Sanction during the year, combining officer contact with radio/ computer technology to monitor the offender. The computer, radio, and communication technologies provide assistance with control elements of supervision while Division Intermediate officers focus on supervision and treatment components. In this most restrictive community sanction, offenders are allowed to leave their residence only for treatment, employment, or education purposes.
Day Reporting Centers: Criminal Justice Partnership funded centers continued operations across the state, focusing on program/ service delivery to offenders. Offenders assigned to this sanction report to the center on a structured and frequent basis, receiving such services as substance abuse treatment, vocational training, GED, and cognitive behavioral interventions. County government or non- profit agency employees operate the centers, with the Division’s Intermediate Officers supervising the offenders and serving as case managers while maintaining a presence within the facilities.
Continuous or Non- Continuous Split Sentence/ Special Probation: A split sentence is imposed by the court and includes a period of incarceration, up to 6 months, which the offender must serve. The offender may have a sentence which allows him to serve only on weekends. In a continuous sentence, the offender serves time with no break ( e. g., serves 6 months continuously instead of having sentence broken into weeks and weekends).
38
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Residential Treatment: Residential treatment facilities, operated outside the scope of the Division, exist to address specific treatment or behavior needs. Offenders ordered to participate in this sanction must spend a specific period of time living within the facility, usually from a 30- day period to as much as a two- year period. Most residential programs are operated by the non- profit sector, although the Department of Correction does operate one residential treatment program, DART Cherry therapeutic community.
Drug Treatment Court: Drug Treatment Court uses a team approach that includes representatives from several local District stakeholders. After determining the needs of the Drug Treatment Court participant, a common case plan is developed with each member of the team having a specific role. The participant is placed under the supervision of a Drug Treatment Court Probation Officer. The probation officer provides community corrections case management.
39
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. F. Supervised Offender Programs & Special Initiatives
The Division of Community Corrections offers a number of programs for offenders to participate in during their sentence of supervision. These programs assist in supervision and provide a specialized intervention to offenders.
Community Service Work Program:
The Community Services Work Program provides oversight of offenders ordered to perform community service hours for criminal offenses, including DWI offenses. Offenders are assigned to perform service to local communities in an effort to promote rehabilitation and restore or improve the community. Over 3,500 agencies utilize community service offenders. During this fiscal year, the position of District Lead Coordinator was implemented in three judicial districts. In these districts, the Lead Coordinators provided oversight of the coordinators who assist in court processing. Additionally, a State Lead Coordinator was appointed to oversee program operation and automation issues. The 137 Community Service Coordinators enrolled 56,150 offenders in the Community Service Work Program. Offenders completed 1,653,828 hours. The types of work performed were general labor, skilled labor, professional labor, and litter pick- up. The total dollar value of the hours performed, based on the type of the labor was $ 8,597,771.31. Community services fees were collected in the amount of $ 7,687,043.31.
Sex Offender Control:
The mission of the Sex Offender Control Program is to enhance public safety and prevent further victimization through teamwork with treatment providers, victim’s groups, and other criminal justice agencies. All offenders ordered to the Sex Offender Control Program are required to abide by the Sex Offender Control Program Special Conditions. These conditions prohibit: offender contact with victims, possession of pornography, and travel and presence in certain locations. Other conditions of this program require the offender to submit to psychological and physiological assessments, as well as warrantless searches. Sex offender treatment providers must agree to abide by guidelines and philosophy established by the Division of Community Corrections for the treatment of sex offenders. There were 830 offenders under the Sex Offender Control Program at the end of this fiscal year.
Domestic Violence Offender Control:
During FY 2005- 2006, the Domestic Violence Control Program continued to strengthen and grow within the Division of Community Corrections. The Division has over 80 specialized Domestic Violence Intermediate officers in 19 districts statewide. The goals of the program are to:
• Provide close supervision and control of domestic violence offenders
• Enhance the safety of domestic violence victims
• Ensure that the batterer completes treatment
• Coordinate the efforts of the courts, law enforcement, treatment providers and victim advocates
There were 1,491 offenders in the Domestic Violence Program at the end of FY 2005- 2006. This number has steadily increased over the past few years, and all indicators point to a continuation of this trend. Rigorous supervision of offenders is a vital part of a comprehensive approach to protecting victims and holding intimate partner domestic violence offenders accountable. This Division is committed to providing appropriate supervision to this population, and will continue to develop and strengthen its supervision standards, as well as train staff in the accurate assessment and effective case planning of domestic violence offenders.
Schools Partnership:
There are over 80 School Partnership officers supervising student probationers in both urban and rural areas. In the urban areas, officers are assigned to individual schools that significantly improve the
40
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
working relationship with school officials. There were 308 offenders in this program at the end of the fiscal year.
The School Partnership Program continues to be a very successful program and DCC realizes that a earning a high school diploma/ GED is one of the most important accomplishments that youthful offenders can achieve. By working closely with school officials, probation officers can address issues on the front end before they escalate to the level of suspension or expulsion from school.
Transition Services, JobStart II and The Going Home Initiative:
The Division of Community Corrections recognizes there are many challenges facing individuals who are reentering society after a period of incarceration. Most of the inmates currently in prison will be released to live in the community at some point. The Division of Community Corrections is involved in planning, developing, and implementing strategies that will have a positive impact on individuals who are seeking reunification with family and the community. A key component of transition services is collaboration with other stakeholders, such as the Division of Prisons, the Office of Transition Services, the faith community, and other advocacy groups. Efforts are directed toward providing a continuity of programs and services to released offenders.
JobStart II is an offender- reentry pilot project that assists selected inmates who have marketable work skills with planning for employment following release. Inmates who complete the pre- release phase of the project have been released with extensive preparation for addressing reentry needs such as, conducting a successful job search and employment retention. In the post- release phase of the project, probation officers assist participating ex- offenders as they pursue their job search plans, secure employment and adjust to life in the community. The goal of JobStart II is to document strategies the Department may use to strengthen offender preparation for successfully re- entering the workplace. JobStart II has been administered by Research and Planning and is scheduled to end on September 30, 2006.
The Going Home Initiative ( GHI) grant is also administered by Research and Planning and has been extended until June, 2007. In addition to the counties currently being served by GHI, six additional counties are being targeted as areas to develop local partnerships. Those additional counties are: Cumberland, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, and New Hanover. Serious and violent offenders who are within a year of release are eligible for the GHI program. The three phases of the program focus efforts on the development of model reentry programs that begin in correctional institutions and continue throughout an offender's transition to, and stabilization in the community. Phase 1 prepares participating offenders to reenter society by offering education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training, mentoring, and full diagnostic and risk assessment. Phase 2 emphasizes the involvement of community- based transition programs, which offer education, housing, monitoring, mentoring, life skills training, assessment, job skills development, and mental health and substance abuse treatment to offenders immediately following release. Phase 3 connects the ex- offender to a network of social services agencies and community- based organizations in order to provide ongoing services and positive mentoring relationships after the individual has left the supervision of the Department of Correction. In Phases 2 and 3, probation officers take over the case management duties and assist ex- offenders as they work towards their reentry goals.
The Division of Community Corrections is aware of the special needs of the target population, as well as legislative mandates applicable to the target population. The goal is to form a seamless system of reentry for offenders so they will have local resources available to them upon release, thus increasing the likelihood of a successful reintegration into the community, thereby reducing recidivism rates.
41
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Hispanic Services:
The Division of Community Corrections Hispanic Services committee has been on the forefront of developing a protocol for effectively communicating with North Carolina’s Spanish speaking population. During the decade of 1990- 2000, the Hispanic population in North Carolina grew by 394% ( the highest growth rate of any state). Current population trends indicate that North Carolina will continue to lead the nation in growth rate in the Hispanic segment of the population. During the fiscal year, 2005- 2006, the Hispanic Services Committee developed a brochure entitled “ Completing Probation/ Parole Successfully”. This brochure has been distributed to all field staff and is also available on online.
Victim Notification Program:
The Division of Community Corrections’ Automated Notification Program has been in operation for two years. The program’s primary function was to ensure the victim notifications were correct according to General Statute 15A- 837, which outlines the responsibilities of the Division regarding the Crime Victim’s Right Act. The notification letters are generated by updates made to offenders’ records in the OPUS ( Offender Population Unified System). The Notification Program generates 25 types of letters, notifying victims of changes in the offenders’ supervision. The DCC Administrative Office Processing Assistants send out approximately 70- 100 victim letters each day, and receive an average of 20 victim calls per day.
In addition to notification, it is the Division’s goal to provide advocacy for the victim community. The Victim Advocate Coordinators in the four Judicial Divisions act as liaisons between the agency and the victims. They handle concerns for all high profile cases, including domestic violence and sex offenses, by offering comprehensive answers to victim’s questions about probation, parole, and post- release supervision. In these positions, they also work with local district attorneys’ offices, victim witness legal assistants, and clerk’s offices to develop and establish a relationship of outreach and education.
Victim contact is primarily by letter and phone. Advocates, who are home as duty station employees, receive an average of 30 calls per day on toll free telephone lines. The advocates also attend probation violation hearings with victims, upon request. There were 4,654 victims who had registered for services as of the end of the fiscal year.
42
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
II. G. Supervised Population Projections
Each year the Department of Correction’s Office of Research and Planning projects the total number of offenders who will be under probation, post- release and parole supervision at the end of the fiscal year. The statistical model projects the supervision population based on aggregate data trends. The primary factors that influence the population projections are the projected number of entries to supervision and the estimated average length of stay for various supervision levels. The population projection integrates Structured Sentencing probation entry projections for the next five years provided by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Length of stay and entries to probation for Driving While Impaired, post- release supervision and parole are derived by Research and Planning staff based on historical trends.
Table II. G. 1: Total Supervision Projections ( Absconders Excluded*) for June 30th of Each Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total Supervised Projection Population
Population Projection by Type of Supervision**
Required Officer Resources
Current Officer Resources
103,054
5,664
Intensive
227
294
37,334
Intermediate
622
516
6,243
Special Ops***
208
172
2006- 2007
53,812
Community
489
509
104,201
5,747
Intensive
230
294
37,772
Intermediate
630
516
6,317
Special Ops***
211
172
2007- 2008
54,365
Community
494
509
105,365
5,831
Intensive
233
294
38,219
Intermediate
637
516
6,391
Special Ops***
213
172
2008- 2009
54,924
Community
499
509
106,544
5,916
Intensive
237
294
38,674
Intermediate
645
516
6,467
Special Ops***
216
172
2009- 2010
55,486
Community
504
509
107,742
6,004
Intensive
240
294
39,139
Intermediate
652
516
6,545
Special Ops***
218
172
2010- 2011
56,054
Community
510
509
* An absconder is an offender on probation who is actively avoiding supervision by making his/ her whereabouts unknown to the supervising officer. The Division of Community Corrections currently assigns the responsibility for capturing absconders to surveillance officers. Once the absconder is captured, he/ she returns to active supervision by the probation/ parole officer.
** Due to rounding, the sum of population projection by type of supervision may not equal total supervised projection.
*** Special operations officers are intermediate officers who supervise special populations ( e. g., sex offenders, domestic violence offenders).
The analysis shows that resources for Intensive Supervision needs will be more than adequate through FY 2010- 2011. Intermediate Supervision resources, without Special Operations cases, remain significantly below the required level to meet the supervision caseload goal of 60. Intermediate Supervision resources for Special Operations cases are also lower than the required level to meet the supervision caseload goal
43
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
of 30. Community Supervision resources are above the number of officers needed to maintain a caseload goal of 110 except in FY 2010- 2011 where one additional officer will be needed.
44
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. Criminal Justice Partnership Program
The Criminal Justice Partnership Act of 1994 expands sentencing options by adding community- based sanctions for offenders receiving non- prison sentences. The Act created the Criminal Justice Partnership Program ( CJPP), which provides state funds to help counties create sentenced offender and pretrial release programs. A local advisory board is responsible for developing, implementing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating a local community corrections plan.
The State- County Criminal Justice Partnership Act established a grant program for counties that is administered by the Department of Correction. The legislative goals of the Partnership Act include the following:
• To reduce recidivism
• To reduce probation violations
• To reduce drug and alcohol dependence, and
• To reduce the cost of incarceration to the State and to counties.
There are two categories of CJPP local programs, Sentenced Offender ( SOP) and Pretrial Release ( PTR) programs. Examples of Sentenced Offender programs include day reporting centers, satellite substance abuse and resource service centers. As of June 30, 2006, in North Carolina 92 of the 100 counties are participating in the Partnership operating 82 programs. These programs include 20 Day Reporting Centers, 44 Satellite Substance Abuse Centers, 18 Resource Centers, and 20 Pretrial Release Programs.
Although the counties have wide latitude on program design, all of the sentenced offender programs provide some combination of substance abuse treatment, education and employment programs. Day Reporting Centers combine sanctions and services. Offenders must report as required and participate in assigned services. Satellite substance abuse centers provide a range of treatment services, on- site and off- site. Resource Centers coordinate a variety of program interventions, some on- site and others off- site.
The CJPP cost per offender per day for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year for the Sentenced Offender programs was $ 6.28 for Day Reporting Centers, $ 3.65 for Resource Centers, $ 3.23 for Satellite Substance Abuse Centers, and $ 0.31 for Pretrial Release Offenders. Cost is calculated by dividing total funds allocated to local CJPP programs by an estimated average daily population in CJPP programs. Any administrative cost for state CJPP, DCC and DOC staff are then added.
CJPP programs store data in a computer system called the CJPP Information Management System ( IMS). The data in this document represent only what CJPP IMS users entered in the system, so the figures may not be representative of all program activities. The data were extracted from the CJPP IMS system. Data for participants in the Sentenced Offender programs were also obtained from the Department of Correction's Offender Population Unified System ( OPUS).
45
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. A Day Reporting Centers
Day Reporting Centers ( DRC) are facilities that serve as an intermediate punishment. Offenders are required to report and comply with a structured schedule that includes activities such as working, counseling, treatment, cognitive behavioral interventions, life skills training, educational or vocational classes, employment training, and/ or community work projects.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a DRC include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment, those required to attend by the Post- Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole, post- release supervision or probationers required to attend, by the court as a result of a probation violation. Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a DRC.
During the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, there were 1,624 admissions to DRC programs. Of the offenders admitted to local DRC programs during FY 2005- 2006, the state courts referred 945 ( 58%), 90 ( 6%) admissions were referred by probation officers, 529 ( 32%) were from a probation violation court order, and 59 ( 4%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission. There was one offender record which had no referral source indicated.
Figure III. A. 1: Referral Sources for DRC Admissions 90 ( 6%) 59 ( 4%) 945 ( 58%) 529 ( 32%) 05001,0001,500State CourtsDelegated AuthorityProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Day Reporting Centers, 40% were misdemeanants. More than half ( 60%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next two largest misdemeanant crime class contributors to CJPP admissions were Class 2 and Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class 2 were convicted of public order and assault, and 83% of those in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
46
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table III. A. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
20
43
24
1
88
( 13%)
1
131
154
99
5
389
( 59%)
2
36
48
12
0
96
( 15%)
3
17
22
9
0
48
( 7%)
Other/ Undefined
32
1
0
0
33
( 5%)
Total
236
268
144
6
654
(%)
( 36%)
( 41%)
( 22%)
( 1%)
The majority ( 60%) of Day Reporting Center admissions for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were felony offenders. Seventy- three percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class H, I, and G offenses were non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and there were 49 admissions for Class G offenses that included robbery and other public order crimes.
Table III. A. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to DRC Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Undefined or
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Non- Structured
Total
(%)
E
23
16
2
0
0
0
0
41
( 4%)
F
20
15
5
0
0
0
0
40
( 4%)
G
44
60
20
12
0
0
0
136
( 14%)
H
135
165
64
21
8
0
0
393
( 41%)
I
87
139
63
24
1
2
0
316
( 33%)
Other
25
4
5
4
4
1
1
44
( 5%)
334
399
159
61
13
3
1
970
Total (%)
( 34%)
( 41%)
( 16%)
( 6%)
( 1%)
(< 1%)
(< 1%)
DRC Program Utilization
There were 2,339 offenders that utilized DRC services during fiscal year 2005- 2006, which represents 77% of the yearly service goal. Table III. A. 3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each DRC program.
47
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Table III. A. 3: DRC Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006
Percent of Offender
Location
Population on July 1, 2005
Entries
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Goal Utilized
Bertie
15
56
71
100
71%
Buncombe
18
37
55
90
61%
Burke
22
13
35
60
58%
Cleveland
25
56
81
130
62%
Cumberland
69
83
152
205
74%
Davidson
23
52
75
150
50%
Durham
65
117
182
220
83%
Forsyth
91
191
282
400
71%
Gaston
56
133
189
240
79%
Guilford
14
53
67
120
56%
Halifax
9
54
63
95
66%
Hertford
30
50
80
80
100%
Mecklenburg
76
115
191
300
64%
Moore
63
129
192
120
160%
New Hanover
25
89
114
115
99%
Northampton
20
48
68
45
151%
Onslow
14
52
66
95
69%
Randolph
33
116
149
160
93%
Wake
27
118
145
200
73%
Wayne
20
62
82
100
82%
TOTAL
715
1,624
2,339
3,025
77%
Type of Exits
There were 1,637 exits from DRC programs during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. Five hundred sixty- one ( 34%) were exited by successful completion, and 77 % of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised. The most frequent type of exit from DRC programs is an unsuccessful removal ( 44%). This occurs when an offender is not adequately participating in programs, which is a violation of their conditions of supervision. The “ Other” category includes 68 offenders who transferred from the program, never reported to the program, were inappropriate for the program, or were released for medical reasons ( 4%).
48
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Figure III. A. 2: DRC Type of Exits
0100200300400500600700800Successful CompletionUnsuccessful RemovalProb Tech ViolationsOtherExit TypeExits
Table III. A. 4: Demographics of DRC Admissions July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006
Male
Female
Age Category
White
Black
Other
White
Black
Other
Total (%)
13- 18
48
161
9
7
18
0
243
( 15%)
19- 21
80
216
4
17
26
2
345
( 21%)
22- 25
77
203
2
31
25
0
338
( 21%)
26- 30
39
118
1
28
22
0
208
( 13%)
31- 35
37
50
2
22
14
0
125
( 8%)
36- 40
31
63
0
16
19
0
129
( 8%)
41- 45
33
41
0
17
23
1
115
( 7%)
46- 50
20
34
0
9
10
0
73
( 4%)
51- 55
10
22
0
2
2
0
36
( 2%)
56- 60
6
3
0
0
0
0
9
(< 1%)
61- 65
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
(< 1%)
TOTAL
382
913
18
149
159
3
1,624
(%)
( 24%)
( 56%)
( 1%)
( 9%)
( 10%)
( 0%)
49
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
III. B Satellite Substance Abuse Programs
CJPP substance abuse treatment programs provide substance abuse services that may include education, out- patient counseling, residential, and in- patient services to offenders.
Type of Admissions
Offenders eligible to attend a SSA include those sentenced by the court to an intermediate punishment ( e. g., intensive supervision program, house arrest with electronic monitoring, residential program, or special probation), those required to attend by the Post- Release Supervision and Parole Commission as a condition of a term of parole or post- release supervision or probationers required to attend by the court as a result of a probation violation. Probation officers may also use delegated authority to refer an offender to a SSA.
During the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, there were 1,938 admissions to SSA programs. Of the offenders admitted to local SSA programs during FY 2005- 2006, the state courts referred 584 ( 30%), 1,117 ( 58%) of admissions were referred by probation officers, 152 ( 8%) were from a probation violation court order, and 24 ( 1%) admissions were referred by the Parole Commission. There was 1 offender record which had no referral source indicated.
Figure III. B. 1: Referral Sources for SSA Admissions 1,117 ( 58%) 24 ( 1%) 584 ( 30%) 152 ( 8%) 05001,0001,500State CourtsDelegated AuthorityProbation ViolationParole CommissionReferral SourceAdmissions 50
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Admissions by Sentencing Grid
Of the offenders admitted to the Satellite Substance Abuse programs, 35% were misdemeanants. More than half ( 55%) of all misdemeanants were convicted of Class 1 crimes. Crimes in Class 1 included non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, assault, other traffic violations and breaking and entering. The next largest misdemeanant crime class contributor to CJPP admissions was Class A1. The majority of offenders convicted of crimes in Class A1 were convicted of assault.
Table III. B. 1: Misdemeanor Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
Undefined or Non- Structured
Total
(%)
A1
9
59
50
0
118
( 17%)
1
66
166
141
2
375
( 55%)
2
12
44
25
0
81
( 12%)
3
8
17
8
0
33
( 5%)
Other/ Undefined
78
1
0
1
80
( 12%)
Total
173
287
224
3
687
(%)
( 25%)
( 42%)
( 33%)
(< 1%)
The majority ( 65%) of all Satellite Substance Abuse admissions for the 2005- 2006 fiscal year were felony offenders. Seventy- three percent of the felony offenders admitted were convicted for Class H or I offenses. The most frequent Class G, H, and I offenses were Class H offenses for non- trafficking drug offenses, larceny, and breaking and entering. Class I offenses also included forgery and fraud, and there were 42 admissions for Class G offenses that included robbery and other property crimes.
Table III. B. 2: Felony Sentencing Table for Admissions to SSA Programs for the 2005- 2006 Fiscal Year
Prior Record Level
Crime Class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Total
(%)
E
22
32
2
5
1
1
63
( 5%)
F
36
45
20
2
0
0
103
( 8%)
G
39
69
32
13
0
0
153
( 12%)
H
112
208
104
34
6
0
464
( 37%)
I
93
194
122
32
2
1
444
( 35%)
Other
12
4
4
3
1
0
24
( 2%)
314
552
284
89
10
2
1,251
Total (%)
( 25%)
( 44%)
( 23%)
( 7%)
(< 1%)
(< 1%)
51
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
SSA Program Utilization
There were 2,766 offenders that utilized SSA services during fiscal year 2005- 2006. This figure represents 103% of the yearly service goal. Table III. B. 3 shows utilization figures and service goals for each SSA program.
Table III. B. 3: SSA Program Utilization Data FY 2005- 2006
Location
Population on July 1, 2005
Entries
Offender Utilization
Yearly Offender Service Goal
Percent of Offender Goal Utilized
Alamance
31
81
112
100
112%
Alleghany
10
14
24
20
120%
Anson
16
26
42
30
140%
Avery
10
15
25
25
100%
Beaufort
13
72
85
100
85%
Brunswick
20
51
71
60
118%
Cabarrus
33
67
100
125
80%
Caldwell
20
54
74
36
206%
Catawba
29
47
76
90
84%
Columbus
17
48
65
50
130%
Craven
39
84
123
120
103%
Duplin
13
49
62
60
103%
Edgecombe
8
32
40
70
57%
Greene
6
35
41
45
91%
Haywood
18
27
45
45
100%
Henderson
61
51
112
148
76%
Jackson
25
36
61
40
153%
Johnston
10
79
89
80
111%
Jones
4
14
18
25
72%
Lenoir
16
36
52
80
65%
Madison
15
8
23
25
92%
Martin
11
26
37
70
53%
Mitchell
17
36
53
30
177%
Nash
17
49
66
85
78%
Orange- Chatham
14
26
40
82
49%
Pamlico
6
27
33
30
110%
Pender
46
70
116
70
166%
Pitt
81
154
235
120
196%
Polk
6
16
22
30
73%
Richmond
18
45
63
80
79%
Rockingham
11
26
37
40
93%
Rowan
16
64
80
80
100%
Rutherford
29
64
93
60
155%
Sampson
7
68
75
60
125%
Scotland- Hoke
27
81
108
93
116%
Stanly
13
47
60
30
200%
Transylvania
8
13
21
35
60%
Tyrrell
13
16
29
25
116%
Union
3
31
34
40
85%
Washington
12
28
40
35
114%
Watauga
32
31
63
70
90%
Wilson
8
29
37
80
46%
Yadkin
5
41
46
35
131%
Yancey
14
24
38
35
109%
Total
828
1,938
2,766
2,689
103% 52
North Carolina Department of Correction 2005- 2006 Annual Statistical Report
Type of Exits
There were 1,901 exits from SSA programs during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year. There were 788 ( 41%) offenders exited by successful completion, and 74% of those went on to either complete their period of supervision or are still being actively supervised.
The second most frequent type of exit from SSA programs was an unsuccessful removal ( 35%).